Mr. Speaker, late yesterday afternoon I was pointing out that there were certain points on which I did not agree with the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman). I agree with him in one respect, however, namely, where he said that in regard to the motion introduced by our Leader, the Prime Minister had made an important speech. As a matter of fact, we regarded the speech as being so important that this is the first time that we do not wish to criticize the Prime Minister for having spoken at such length. The fact that he devoted the first hour of the 2¾ hours odd which he spoke, to subordinate matters, proves a lack of a sense of proportion, but I cannot criticize him because of the other hour and a half that he devoted to his statement of policy. That was important. But, Mr. Speaker, we want to say immediately, and place it on record, that the manner in which the Broadcasting Corporation dealt with the Prime Minister’s speech was not at all justified, they were unreasonable towards him. In the first instance, it is quite clear that the Broadcasting Corporation knew the text of his speech before it was delivered, that the Corporation itself did not have the opportunity of judging how important the speech was. Because all the preparations were made for acclaiming to high Heaven the speech before it was delivered in this House; otherwise it would not have been possible for the Corporation to do what they did on the same day. And, Mr. Speaker, if you seek precedents for what the Broadcasting Corporation did, namely, to broadcast distress bulletins practically every quarter of an hour while the Prime Minister was speaking, as to the progress he was making, you find this precedent that when a national catastrophe hits a country, that is done. When those land slides took place in Peru recently, a bulletin was broadcast every quarter of an hour as to what was happening to those people. We also know from our own experience, when we belonged to the Commonwealth, that when the Head of State, namely, the King, is dying, bulletins are broadcast every quarter of an hour as to his progress. When we bear these precedents in mind, we can only hope that the sombre symbolism of the actions of the Broadcasting Corporation did not pass unnoticed by the people of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are glad that the hon. the Prime Minister made that statement because we remember how often in the past, we as Opposition, realized and told the public outside that was the direction in which the Prime Minister was steering and how followers of the Nationalist Party accused us on those occasions of distorting and misrepresenting the policy of the Nationalist Party. I am pleased, therefore, that on the insistence of our hon. Leader, the Prime Minister has made that statement. What I found interesting was the eagerness with which the Prime Minister did it. He was as nervous to make the required statement as a recruit who jumps up at the command of his senior officer. If the hon. the Prime Minister had announced on Tuesday …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, Mr. Speaker, had the House also extended to us the opportunity of talking two hours and 37 minutes, we would have had time to reply to questions. I want to say at once that if the hon. the Prime Minister had announced that in the case of the Transkei and other Bantu Authorities, he would grant a certain degree of decentralization of power, that he would allow them to handle matters such as their own education, their roads and those other matters which the Minister mentioned, then this side of the House would have supported him, because in that case those would have been the first essential steps along the road to the Federation policy advocated by this side of the House. I also want to say this that seeing that the Prime Minister is embarking on the first stages there, we can only hope that the people of South Africa will realize timeously that the ultimate plan of the Prime Minister will be catastrophic, and avail themselves of the opportunity of converting his plans into the establishment of a federal system. But where the Prime Minister announced that his ultimate objective was the fragmentation of South Africa, as he himself called it, this South Africa which has taken us a period of 300 years to build up….

Who?

Yes, we South Africans and nobody else. Where he is ultimately going to divide South Africa into separate states, he must realize that nobody—nobody—who is concerned about the future of South Africa, can support him in that. Nobody, that is to say, nobody who has the opportunity of learning what the alternatives are and of studying them. To my mind, the tragedy of the situation which this Government has created for the majority of us Afrikaans-speaking citizens in this country, is that they are in many respects in the same position in which the German nation of Hitler found itself, that they as Afrikaners, are not allowed more freely to learn what the alternative is, because in the main their Press is one-sided. Even from their pulpits only one side is preached. Their schools are sources of indoctrination, and the Broadcasting Corporation has been enslaved. The tragedy of South Africa is that there are tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of Afrikaans-speaking South Africans who find themselves in a kind of totalitarian state, just as Hitler’s Germans found themselves. Let us study what the Prime Minister has submitted to us, of which we had a faint echo from the hon. the Minister of Finance. The Prime Minister has submitted to us his basic principles on which to build the future of South Africa, that where groups are fundamentally separate groups they should also receive separate political institutions and should ultimately form separate states. I think that is a reasonable interpretation of the underlying concept as put to this House by the Prime Minister. But then he went further and focused our attention on Europe. He pointed out how throughout the centuries nations have aimed at giving separate state institutions to separate groups and how that was the only way in which they found they could maintain peace in Europe. Why did the Prime Minister not, to complete his analogy, go further? Why did he not point out that the misery which prevailed in Europe was caused by those cases where there had been separation, but not completely? Why did he not tell us that all the wars of the Twentieth century were caused by the fact that the one state could interfere with another state in respect of the treatment of its citizens who formed a minority group in that state? Why did he not tell us that the wars which were fought in the Balkan States in 1911 and 1912 were all caused by the position of the minority groups in the Turkish Empire? Why he did not point out to us that the First World War started as a result of the position of minority groups in Austria, in Hungary? Why did he not mention that the Second World War was caused by the fact that Hitler could interfere with the misfortunes of those Germans who formed minority groups in other states? Why did he not tell us that the Anglo Boer War was started as a result of the misfortunes of the British minority in the Transvaal?

Nonsense.

That being the pattern, I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister, and he ought to know it although he will probably never admit it, that this scheme of his must inevitably create the classic situation where there will be clashes within the Republic of South Africa …

Do you not find the parallel in the race federation policy?

No, Mr. Speaker, I shall come to that. We have examples of federations that have worked well throughout the world. In a race federation each race or community enjoys self-government as far as those matters which affect it intimately are concerned, but there is one common body that deals with those matters which are of common interest. Therein lies the fundamental weakness of the Prime Minister’s plan, as I shall show. The Prime Minister comes here and announces that what is happening in the case of the Transkei will eventually happen in the case of the other seven or eight Bantustans. Will the people of the Transkei then have to decide who will have the vote? They will decide that, but at the same time they will also be able to confer citizenship upon and give the franchise to the majority of their people who do not live in the Transkei but in the area of the Republic of South Africa. I want to issue a friendly challenge to the hon. the Prime Minister to give us one example of such a ridiculous situation in the whole world throughout history.

What about Basutoland?

The most recent census figures prove that for the first time in our history there are more Xhosas in the Cape Province outside the Transkei than within the Transkei. That is a fact, however, which the Prime Minister ignores completely, it does not enter his mind, it is not within his knowledge; it does not affect his judgment. Over a million Natives will have the right to vote in the Transkei although they are physically in the Republic of South Africa where they earn their living. Amongst them there are hundreds of thousands who do not know the Transkei, who were not born there and who have never been there. They will be citizens of the Transkei, resident in the Republic of South Africa, without any rights in South Africa [Interjections]. Mr. Speaker, the Republic of South Africa does not formulate the laws of Basutoland. I am dealing with the laws formulated by the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa. That being so, people go out of their way to create greater attractions for the Natives to come to the White areas. I have one or two examples here. Recently the Minister of Bantu Administration made a statement which was reported in Die Vaderland of 22 September, 1961, in connection with legislation that he wished to introduce consolidating all legislation dealing with the urban Natives. I do not know which part of that speech he regards as the most important, but Die Vaderland, which is a Nationalist Party newspaper, looked for it and in the caption to the report, Die Vaderland writes this—

What does the Minister say now?—

That makes it easier and more attractive for the Native to come to the cities from the Bantu areas. Not only that, but under the leadership of United Party supporters a movement, which is gaining ground all over, even with the Prime Minister, has come into being to increase Native wages in industry considerably. During September the Prime Minister addressed the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut and suggested that industrial workers should be paid higher wages for their labour. A similar plea was made at a meeting of the Nasionale Ontwikkelingstigting. That was also asked for at the Instituut for Personeelbestuur. That has been done throughout South Africa and we are probably the only country in the world where employers form societies and organizations in order to improve the working conditions of their Native employees. But all this is in conflict with the underlying idea of a Bantustan. Here we have a case where the Prime Minister says that he regards the giving of independence to Native areas consisting of tens of thousands of morgen, as a solution to our racial problems, while he makes quite sure that the majority of the Native population remain in the service of the White man and his industries. That is cynical and I can use a stronger word to describe it. We have heard a great deal about the attempts that should be made to attract the Bantu back to the Native reserves, but in that case the Prime Minister must realize that can only be done by encouraging capital investment in those areas on a larger scale than the capital investment in the remainder of the Republic.

How do you come to that?

The hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) has already pointed out that the national growth in the case of the Bantu is much higher than in the case of the Whites. If we wish to retain the national growth of the Bantu in the Bantu area we must in future invest more money in the reserves than outside the reserves.

Can we regard this step on the part of the Prime Minister as an acceptance of his responsibility for the development of those areas so that they will support more Natives than they do to-day? Or, Mr. Speaker, is this a set to run away from that responsibility? I am convinced that the latter is the case. There is one newspaper which practically belongs to the Nationalist Party, a paper which occasionally shows signs of independence and which occasionally tries to proclaim the truth, and that is the Burger. The Burger wrote a series of articles in which they pleaded for the development of separate Bantu areas to be accelerated. Why? In order to isolate the poverty of the Bantu in South Africa in those areas.

Aren’t you ashamed of yourself?

Let me read it to you, Sir. Here I have an example from the Burger of Friday, 10 November 1961. It appears in a strongly worded leader under the heading: “The White Man in Africa.” That is the theme that it develops. This is the clearest sense in which it appears—

The problem confronting an area like the Transkei is that there is greater poverty there than in any other part of South Africa. The problem facing the United Nations throughout Africa is to create an infra-structure of efficiency, of expertness, or administrative ability, of certain essential services which go towards the development of a country. Those are the services such as education, electricity, telephone services, transport, roads and railways. Native leaders tell people who travel in Central Africa that if only South Africa used its brains it could give the lead in this respect. Their problem is to provide those essential services. As far as we can see into the future they will not be able to compete with us as an industrial country and as far as this infra-structure that has to be created is concerned, we can, if we use our heads, render a great service to them to our mutual advantage. That is the problem of the Transkei. To what extent, according to the speech of the Prime Minister, does he retain for the Republic of South Africa the responsibility for providing those services to the Transkei? Reference has been made to it that they will retain direct taxation. They will also be compensated for the costs of certain services which they will take over. To what extent will those costs assist the Transkei to become more active in the economic field, to maintain a greater population than it does to-day? The Prime Minister is running away from his responsibilties. He spoke about subsidization, but at the same time he was quick to tell his followers that it would amount to something like R2,000,000. That is not even a drop in the ocean. I repeat that those steps which the Prime Minister has announced are not steps forward. The granting of sham political rights to the lesser developed parts of our country is an attempt to evade responsibility. I repeat that what the Prime Minister told us Tuesday, entitles me to come to the conclusion to which I have come. He is trying to run away from the responsibilities which inevitably flow from an actual policy of separate development. The problem which confronts him to-day is the deterioration and impoverishment of the Bantu population in those areas. Mr. Speaker, during the time at my disposal I should like to draw your attention to two dangers which emanate from this policy. The one has often been emphasized and as a result of the Prime Minister’s statement, this one has once again been brought to our notice. I want to mention the first one. The Prime Minister announced that the franchise would be granted in respect of the election of the Transkeian Authority, the new Transkeian Parliament, to all Transkeian Bantu in the Transkeian territory and outside the Transkeian territory. Mr. Speaker, those people live in South Africa. Those people earn their living here in South Africa, and for them to have the vote in the Transkei will serve one purpose only, that is, they will use their vote here to give expression to their feeling of dissatisfaction and frustration and elect a Parliament in the Transkei which will become an agitator against the Republic of South Africa. That is inevitable. Those people are dissatisfied and who have insufficient political power, will use their power to create ways and means of agitating against what they regard as the source of injustice. Mr. Speaker, what is more serious than that, is the fact that the Prime Minister, spurred on by selfish motives …

That is not true.

I shall prove it. I repeat, the Prime Minister, spurred on by selfish motives, now wants to retain the labour force of the Transkei and other Native areas for South Africa by encouraging industry in future to establish themselves, not in our existing industrial areas and not within the Native areas, but on the borders of the Bantu areas so that the Native labour can get out and work in the White man’s factory, thus enriching the White man and afterwards returning to the Native area. I say that such a policy can only be advocated for selfish considerations.

For practical considerations.

Yes, the practical considerations of a man who wants to make money out of the labour of the Native, although he lives in an independent state. But at the same time does my hon. friend opposite not realize that if the policy of the Prime Minister progresses and succeeds, the labour force of future industries of South Africa will ultimately be dependent on and be controlled by a foreign government over whose policy we shall have no control. Mr. Speaker, these are serious matters and in all friendliness I want to challenge the hon. the Prime Minister to give me one example in the whole world where a state has made its industries dependent on a labour force consisting of citizens who are not members of its own state, and over whose destiny it has no control. Mr. Speaker, that is to make South Africa strategically, completely vulnerable and helpless. And that is what is being offered to us as a solution of our racial problems in South Africa.

If you have a common fatherland what will that labour do if it gains supremacy?

Mr. Speaker, if you have a common fatherland that labour force is not controlled by a government in which you have no say, by a government which can quite easily enter into an alliance with the enemies of your country. Or does the hon. the Prime Minister mean that a South African Government may enter into an alliance with the enemies of South Africa? Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the hon. the Prime Minister himself admitted that the creation of separate Bantu areas, such as those he envisages in the Transkei, may become a springboard and a stepping stone for the communists to an area which is a South African area. Does he think that if the communists gain such a footing, they will not immediately and instantly realize that the weak spot in the back of the Republic of South Africa is the labour which they can influence within that state? [Interjections.] That is what I want to say to the Prime Minister in all seriousness. It is false reasoning on his part to think, to think superficially, that by creating separate political institutions, we shall solve South Africa’s problem, without at the same time seeing to it that the people who it is intended shall live in those separate states, can really make their future physical living in those separate states. To bring about superficial separation without actual separation between people, is fantastic; it is useless. It creates problems instead of solving problems. Unless we accept that no matter how divergent the races in South Africa are in their standards and conceptions and ways of life, they have inevitably and unavoidably been placed together here in the Republic of South Africa, we shall never gain a clear insight into the problems of our country. If we wish to console ourselves with the fictitious idea that by creating a Parliament in the Transkei for the Bantu, we shall be solving the problems of the Pondo and the Xhosa in the White areas of the Republic of South Africa, we are only deceiving ourselves and we are jeopardizing the future of South Africa. Of course we know it, and the Prime Minister knows it that we are living amongst each other here and that we are economically dependent upon each other. In every sphere we have been placed inseparably together here in South Africa by the Almighty and by history. And if there are differences which you wish to air. to which you wish to give shape in order to protect yourself, you can only do so by taking into consideration the fact that we are living together in one state or in one area, if you do not wish to think of it as one state; and the only way in which you can attain devolution of power and influence is by means of the federal system which is being practised to-day in more than half the democracies of the world,

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say this. I hope it is not too late. The Prime Minister, in taking this first step, is not deviating from the concept of a federation in South Africa. But if he continues to create separate citizenships and to confer sovereignty on these ares—which he has not as yet done—we shall reach a stage of no return, where it will be too late forever. The day will come when in the history of South Africa he will be remembered as the man …

Who achieved great things.

Yes, who achieved great things, because it demands power and a terrific sense of responsibility to bring about the destruction of South Africa. The Prime Minister may go down in history as the man who, because of his stubbornness and refusal to face up to simple facts, caused the death of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to say much about the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). We know the hon. member as one of the prime creators of bogies and ghost stories, as one of the biggest manufacturers of scarecrows. The hon. member had much to say about running. Running has actually become a complex with them. To me he personifies the maker of scarecrows in the political sphere. He has always tried to frighten the public in that way. He has not succeeded, and will never succeed in doing so, but I just want to say this. The consequences of the hon. member’s arguments condemn his own standpoint which he adopted here to-day, and I just want to give a few examples.

The hon. member sneeringly referred here to the remark made by the hon. the Prime Minister in connection with the European states. He stated that there the conflicts were caused by the minorities in the other states. Well, is it not the minorities in this federation plan of his which will lead to the doom of South Africa? That is the lesson to be learnt from the European states. Therefore no person who has the interests of South Africa at heart can associate himself with such a policy.

But I go further. The hon. member expressed his concern that all that the Prime Minister wants to do with the Transkei is that he wants to create a reservoir of labour for the White industrialists, and in the next breath he expresses his deep concern: What will happen now to the labour potential of the industries in South Africa if that Transkei is established? In other words, the hon. member is not concerned about the future and the development of the Bantu, he is concerned about the labour of the Bantu and nothing else. That is the basis of his approach and that of his party.

But the hon. member also uses a third argument here. He says that the fact that the inhabitants of the Transkei who are in the White areas will now be linked up with their own areas affords no solution. It will not solve the problems of the Pondos, etc. Does the hon. member not know the lessons taught by history? Does he not know the lessons taught by Africa which are to be seen daily? I just want to point to this one fact, that in the early days the Churches did the same thing. In their evangelisation the Churches tried to draw a distinction between the tribal Bantu and the Christian Bantu, and what was the result? Few things harmed the preaching of the gospel in South Africa so much as that policy. But what is more, just look at the number of clashes which resulted and the murders which were committed on a large scale. Mr. Speaker, every nation in the world has a few basic rights the first of which is this, that every nation in the world is entitled to the services of its best sons and daughters; and a policy which aims at depriving any nation of its sons and daughters is, to say the least of it, a diabolical policy. Few things cause so much racial hatred in the world as such a policy. Hence we cannot make ourselves guilty of adopting a policy which will result in splitting up the national units of the Bantu. Just as my people are entitled to the services of all their sons and daughters and the unity of their sons and daughters in their own area, so every Bantu national unit in the Republic of South Africa is entitled to its sons and daughters. What is more, it is entitled to the intellect and knowledge of its sons and daughters, and it is one of the great injustices committed against the Bantu in the past that a policy was followed which tried to deprive the Bantu people of the services of their best sons and daughters and attempted to use them for the benefit of the Whites. Few things caused as much racial hatred as that.

But there is another basic right to which a nation is also entitled. Every nation is entitled to govern its own affairs. That is the basis from which this side of the House sets out, and it has been proved that no power in the world can obstruct that process. Eventually it comes to full realization. Therefore, if there is one solemn duty resting on the White man in South Africa, it is to prevent this from happening. It is his duty to train every Bantu national group to govern its own affairs, and that is what is being done in terms of this policy.

The policy announced here by the Prime Minister is not a new one. It is the logical development of the policy of apartheid which has run like a golden thread through our whole national development for the past 300 years. It is a process which gradually develop over the centuries as the Whites and the Bantu came into contact with each other. I will concede that it was the National Party which gave a definite form to this policy. The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) yesterday referred to the Sauer Commission. I had the privilege of being Secretary to that Commission, and to-day I can say that the whole tendency of that report was on those lines. At that time, on the instructions of Dr. Malan, I drafted the summary of that report, which was published just like that, with minor amendments, as our policy in 1947-8. Read that policy to-day and you will see that what is happening here is just a logical implementation of that policy and nothing more. Therefore hon. members cannot level the accusation that we have now suddenly come to light with a new policy. On the contrary, it is the logical development of our traditional policy in South Africa.

It has been said here that the hand of the hon. the Prime Minister has been forced. That is not so. He has not been forced. Years ago already the Prime Minister announced that this is the course we would systematically follow, and that other developments would follow. Hon. members therefore cannot make that sort of assertion here. All we are doing is honestly and sincerely keeping our word in regard to the Bantu of South Africa.

Why not before the election?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that hitherto no positive steps had been taken; that everything had just been negative. The Leader of the Opposition is the last man who should use the word “negative”, because a more negative debate than we have seen here during the last few days on the side of the Opposition I have never heard in my life before. I honestly suspect that at the last moment the Leader of the Opposition told his caucus: Attack and hit hard and put up bogies, but in Heaven’s name do not mention our policy. [Laughter.] The Leader of the Opposition levelled the accusation that up to now nothing positive had been done. He said that the report of the Tomlinson Commission had been published, but that nothing had yet been done in South Africa to develop the Bantu and his territories. I must frankly say that at the moment I was reminded of the words in the Bible, that he, the Leader of the Opposition, is dying in ignorance, because if only he had taken a little trouble he would have seen that the opposite was the truth. I just want to refer to the great work we have done in connection with the clearing up of the slums in our cities, on which more than R200,000,000 was spent. Fortunately he did say that he excluded housing. I have great hopes that in another few years we will have other admissions too. That was a great and onerous task, but in the meantime we have not been idle. I want to mention a few figures, but first I just want to state this proposition.

There has never been a government in South Africa which has done so much for the development of the Bantu areas and of the Bantu in general as this Nationalist Government. Hence the fact that to-day we can boast that there is no country in the whole of Africa where the standard of living of the non-Whites is as high as it is in South Africa, and there are few countries in the Middle East and in Asia who can claim that. Therefore we can also boast that there is not a country in the whole of Africa where the percentage of literacy among the Bantu is as high as it is in South Africa, and there are few countries in the East which can claim that. I say that there has never been a government which has done as much for the development of the Bantu areas as this Government has done.

I just want to quote a few figures. In the past 13 years more has been done for the development of the Bantu in general, and the development of his areas in particular, than was done in the past 50 years since Union. I challenge anyone to deny that. But I go further. The hon. member said that nothing has been done since the publication of the report of the Tomlinson Commission. I repeat that reveals a large measure of ignorance. Since the publication of that report, the following things have been done in regard to the development of the Bantu areas in a few spheres only. Land has been purchased. An amount of more than R10,000,000 has been spent annually on conserving the soil and improving the cattle. I want to challenge hon. members to go and view the results we have achieved. It was a very difficult task, and this task was made particularly difficult for us by the Leader of the Opposition and his party. I just want to mention a few examples of that.

Look at the large-scale campaign launched against the policy of apartheid in recent times, particularly by the hon. member for Yeoville. They took delight in publishing the wildest stories. I lay this accusation at their door, that the unfavourable atmosphere prevailing in large parts of the world in respect of the policy of apartheid was created by the Opposition. What one sees there is the baby of the Opposition. That is a fact and it cannot be denied. They inspired the Press here by means of the speeches they made in this House, which were then published abroad. I want to mention one example. One of their respected leaders, ex-Senator Rubin, published a little pamphlet here. “This is Apartheid”.

Whose leader?

That pamphlet was published abroad on a large scale, one of the most unsavoury and dishonest pieces of work I have ever seen in my life. But that was depicted to the world as being apartheid and not a single member of the United Party got up to repudiate him. I had the experience of a certain South African coming to me with this pamphlet and saying he would no longer give his support to our party because he could not support a thing like that. I gave him the legislation dealing with the matter, and when he had finished he said there was one thing which puzzled him; he could not understand how anyone could publish such an unscrupulous pamphlet. But the hon. members opposite did nothing about it.

I want to mention another example. When we began clearing up the slums of Johannesburg, Sophiatown and those places, do you remember what a fuss they made here and what stories they told to the world? The other day I again read those newspapers and one can hardly believe that anybody could do a thing like that. There we have Meadowlands to-day, and show me a happier community. But just think of the methods they adopted here in order to wreck this positive step we took. Let me mention another example. When we removed a number of Natives, the Mamatolas, from that mountain, just remember the row they made here and the reports published to the world. On reading it to-day one feels ashamed. There we have the Mamatolas today, and most of them are becoming rich. One of their lieutenants, ex-Senator Basner, saw to it that he pocketed almost all their money. I accused him of taking their money on a large scale, and he informed me that he obtained £2,000 from them for his professional services. Sir, there was no litigation in regard to that matter, but he himself admitted that he received £2,000 from them. Personally I think he received much more. That is the type of method with which we are faced. Just think of the suspicion which was sown on a large scale in the minds of the Bantu and the Whites as well as overseas in regard to the system of Bantu authorities. White people went from Cape Town to the Transkei and other places to try to incite these people not to accept Bantu authorities. So I can mention more examples. I say those hon. members made things very difficult for us. There are few Opposition parties in the world which play such a role in their own country. But there is one thing in regard to which I think we should really stand together, and that is that when something constructive is being done we should first see whether it is right or wrong. Let us at least stand together here and if there is criticism, let it be just criticism, but it is not right and fair to sow suspicion.

I want to turn to another matter. It is the positive side of our policy. I announced last year that we were busy with a five-year plan and I just want to say a few things about that. I may just say that plan has been drafted. I have it here in my hands. It consists solely of tables; it is not accompanied by any eloquent description, because this is a plan which is being implemented. It is not a paper plan. It was already put into operation last year and it is being implemented daily and we are making good progress. But much work was entailed in order to achieve that. It was necessary during the past year to create the right climate amongst people who were filled with suspicion as far as these developments were concerned.

Is the hon. the Minister prepared to lay it on the Table?

The hon. member can come and see it at any time in my Department. In the past we were faced with a few difficulties, namely that there was a wall of prejudice on the part of many Bantu. That is a phenomenon not only in South Africa but right throughout Africa. In addition, we had the difficulty that there was a campaign to sow suspicion amongst the Bantu. This climate of co-operation had to be created. I can produce the evidence to-day that wall of suspicion has been broken down and we are now receiving more co-operation from the Bantu in regard to these development works than we have ever had before. To-day I am faced with this serious problem, that I receive so many applications from the Bantu tribes for developmental work in their areas that I just do not have the personnel to cope with it. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) mentioned Pondoland. We have had so many applications from Pondoland, from the same people with whom we had all this trouble recently, asking for development work to be done in their area, that we just cannot cope with it all. We must now adopt special measures in order to assist them. That climate has thus been created. How can people ever be made to realize what a difficult task we had to fulfil there? What is more, it has always been my standpoint that this development of the Bantu must be done by the Bantu himself. Therefore we had to consult them in regard to these development plans. We consulted them at all levels. Where there were territorial authorities we consulted them. We consulted the regional authorities and also the tribal authorities wherever necessary. Therefore this whole plan is really to a large extent also the creation of the Bantu himself. To-day they feel that this is not a White man’s plan about which they are suspicious, but one which they themselves helped to draw up, and therein lies the secret of our success. Why could we achieve this? We could do this because Bantu authorities had become so successful. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories said that Bantu authorities are not being accepted, but that is not so. We have tried the other system, that of the previous Government, that system which was completely Western in orientation, and what was the result? The result was that in 30 years’ time 23 small councils were established, with the exception of the Transkei and the Ciskei. To-day there are more than 400 tribal authorities and approximately 50 regional authorities. The territorial authorities of the Transkei and the Ciskei and the Tswana have been established, and during the course of this year the territorial authorities of all the other national groups will be established. Most of them have reached an advanced stage. Before the end of the year all these territorial authorities will be in operation, and we have this splendid co-operation by the Bantu. But what did that mean? It meant that the infra-structure of self-government, of their development and of running their own affairs, was created. It should not be forgotten that in these Bantu authorities they were systematically trained by our officials to frame their budgets and to do the planning in the areas. They went from place to place to assist them. To-day we can say with every right that in South Africa we now have that kernel from which development should be able to flow to an extent unequalled in any other African state.

Just let me say this in passing. It should not be forgotten that Nigeria developed on this same system, and of all the African states Nigeria is the most successful. The Bantu authorities of Nigeria were the foundation on which they built. Why? Because the Bantu understand that system. I freely admit that here and there were abuses, but those malpractices are being remedied every day, and everything is done in co-operation with the Bantu. Now we are faced with this position in this whole plan of development, a position which is very serious, namely that the life of a nation has many facets. We believe that every national unit should develop there to absolute maturity and therefore no facet of the life of that national unit should be neglected. Attention should be devoted to every facet of the lives of those people. That is the standpoint we adopted and those are the lines along which we worked and are still working, and for that reason it captured the imagination of the people and to-day the position is that this plan which was launched in April last year has already achieved splendid results.

But there are also a few basic principles in this plan on which we based our policy throughout. The one is the principle that they themselves should do the work, which is indeed the best training for those people. We know that the practical man is the one who will be most useful to us. In the second place, we set out from the standpoint that this process of development should not be a static process but a dynamic one. In other words, it must work generatively; the one must develop the other, and that is why we are so successful. We had the splendid example under the old British Government of the Glen Grey district. Development was tackled there also, but by the Whites, and in the final result nothing of it remained over. There was, e.g., a splendid dam below which hundreds of bags of wheat were harvested at the time. There was a small break in the dam wall and nobody wanted to repair it; they just left the dam as it was. That is the sort of thing we must obviate.

But there is another important task. We believe that this development can only be successful if one cultivates a sense of responsibility on the part of these people. Mistakes are bound to occur here and there, but we would rather see mistakes being made than nothing being done. They are actively concerned in the whole process of development and that is the secret of success for any development. But that is not only my standpoint; it is also the standpoint of the UN experts in regard to this matter. I want to ask hon. members to read the latest report of UN about the development of the under-developed countries, where this is laid down as the most important proposition. But now that we do it, the hon. members for Yeoville and Transkeian Territories say that we are afraid of our task—that we are running away. No, the Whites must still do these things for the Bantu. No, Sir, that sort of thing does not pay. One cannot have any dynamic development by adopting this policy. Regard must also be had to the spiritual values of every national group. I want to say to-day that in various spheres of management steps have been taken to get the Bantu to do the work themselves, which enables them to make further progress. I can state that their education, from primary education to the university level, has been designed for the development of the Bantu and the Bantu only. In other words, they are no longer lost to their own community. In the economic sphere good beginnings have been established. In regard to the drafting of these plans we set to work as follows: There are eight national units and we ensure that all these groups would receive more or less equal treatment. In fact, they are very proud and jealous of it, and this is one of the good things about it, that no national group in the whole of the country is neglected. We further ensured that it would be geared to the highest tempo of development, taking into consideration what the Bantu himself can do, because it is of no use doing things if he cannot do them himself. We took into consideration that infra-structure of experience and the know-how of the Bantu. I can state to-day that through this policy we have established a spirit of confidence and of co-operation, a spirit of peaceful co-existence, instead of chaos and lack of confidence and an intermingled existence such as the hon. members opposite want.

Mr. Speaker, it is unnecessary for me to deal with all these things. I particularly want to deal with the physical aspect of it. Of course we put the emphasis of the development of the basic services in these areas because, as hon. members know, and as all economists will tell them, that is a prerequisite for the later large-scale development of industries and other things. In the first place the accusation was that we went too slowly in buying land. The tempo of land purchases has been increased considerably. Everywhere we are busy buying the necessary land adjoining these large Bantu areas. I just want to say that I had consultations with the various agricultural unions. We enjoyed splendid co-operation from them. I can also give the House the glad tidings to-day—and I regret that the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) is not here to-day—that Natal always said not one inch of land more for the Natives of Natal. But I had a long discussion with the Natal Agricultural Union in Pretoria. They unanimously decided that they would exert themselves to co-operate with us in regard to the proper reshuffling of these areas with a view to the provision of the necessary quota of land there. At this stage I can tell the following little story. Years ago, as Chairman of the Native Affairs Commission, I visited Pietermaritzburg and there a certain body of Natalians had an interview with me and said that they had decided that the Natives should not have another inch of land in Natal, and they asked that all the Black spots in Natal should be eliminated. I then asked them where I could put these people.

The Chairman then glanced in the direction of the Secretary and said: “Good heavens, we never thought of that.” But fortunately to-day we have the co-operation of those people, people who look much further ahead than many U.P. members are looking to-day, and I welcome it.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that we had done nothing in the agricultural sphere. I accept that he said so through ignorance. He also quoted from reports to show how precarious the agricultural position is. I can merely reply that those people did not see those places 12 years ago, otherwise they would not have drafted a report like that.

Are you not a member of Sabra?

I am. I just want to mention two examples, one in the south and one in the north, and here I want to mention King William’s Town. Ten years ago that area resembled a desert, as every White man will admit. But just go and see how the carrying capacity of that area has now been raised. In this respect we got the best evidence from an old Native, who is not even a member of a council. When a few chiefs visited the area some time ago, chiefs who would not accept Bantu authorities, this old Native got up and said: “I would advise you to accept it. I was born in this place. It was a desert. I sold cattle, but as skin and bones. The only money I had was this.” and he took out a tobacco-bag with a few shillings in it. Then he said, further: “But look at my cattle now. I now sell fat cattle,” and then he took a wad of notes from his pocket and said: “This is what I now get for my cattle.” Surely that is much better evidence than that which hon. members of the Opposition can bring.

But I want to take hon. members to Nongoma. Nongoma is the main territory of the Zulus. Just consider what it looked like there a few years ago in the agricultural sphere, and compare it with the position to-day. Just look at the order which has been brought about and the scientific agricultural methods being applied there. I want to repeat what I said here before and what the Leader of the Opposition does not want to accept, namely, that firstly we increased the grain production of the Bantu areas during the last few years by 25 per cent, and it will be increased even more. In most places we improved considerably the carrying capacity of the veld. Just look at the quality of the animals produced there to-day. Look at the money the Bantu receive at the cattle sales. In the next five years we hope to increase land purchase considerably. We have, e.g., decided to extend the contour walls by at least 10,000 miles and to increase the grass strips by at least 80,000 miles. We have decided considerably to expand the number of cattle-stations. I just want to say that there are a number of places where I have been able to hand over the cattle-breeding stations to the Bantu themselves with excellent results. There is irrigation. We have decided within the next five years to place at least 15,000 morgen under irrigation, apart from the other schemes being established by the other departments. In regard to forestry, we have decided to expand this by at least 12,700 morgen of non-commercial trees and by more than 44,000 acres of commercial trees. In regard to water, we have decided to sink at least 1,500 bore-holes and to build at least 1,400 dams, and the Bantu themselves are building those. In regard to roads, we have decided within the next five years to extend the roads by at least 2,500 miles, with almost 80 bridges which will have to be built. In regard to fibre production, we have decided to put at least another 10,000 morgen under fibre, and the Bantu are cooperating. Then there is the question of housing. Since the hon. member asked me the question—we are proceeding so fast that he is almost a Rip van Winkle—we have built more than 6,000 houses in these towns, which are already occupied. Those houses were built by this Department. By the end of 1966 more than 80,000 houses will have been built by this Department alone in these various towns. For that I am making use of Bantu contractors and Bantu building workers and I want to invite hon. members to inspect the splendid work they are doing. I am very proud of it. But look at the thousands of Bantu who are being employed in these areas. Sir, hon. members ridiculed me … [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development will forgive me for not dealing with his speech in this debate. He will appreciate, I am sure, that I have only a limited time allotted to me in this debate and I am in duty bound to devote it to the interests of the people whom we represent in this House. I have not the slightest doubt that in due course other speakers on this side of the House will deal with the hon. the Minister and his speech.

It is a pity that the hon. the Prime Minister did not in the course of his lengthy speech in this House avail himself of the opportunity of replying to the very important issue raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition with regard to the future of our Coloured people in the Republic. Apart from assuring us that he had no intention of abolishing the present European representation as far as the Coloureds are concerned in this House, the hon. the Prime Minister declared that the Government’s policy was fully set forth in the declaration which he made to the Coloured Affairs Department on 12 December last, and he went on to say that he had nothing further to add to that statement. I say it is a pity that the Prime Minister did not answer the very important questions put to him by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. We who represent the Coloured people in this House feel that we must avail ourselves of this opportunity, this early opportunity in the life of this Session, to discuss the Government’s policy in regard to the Coloured people. We do so in the hope that as the result of this discussion and other discussions which I am sure will take place in the course of this Session, there will be forthcoming some pronouncement of a change in Government policy which will bring some hope to our Coloured citizens and which will at the same time bring much-needed relief to South Africa in respect of the hostile world attitude with which, unfortunately, our country is at present confronted.

Before I deal with the Prime Minister’s 10year plan for the Coloured people of South Africa, I feel that I would like to say that the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement with regard to our Bantu population is at least an attempt to give that section of our people self-government on the basis of the ordinary popular vote system. I personally regard this as a very important change in Government policy. It is at least a positive contribution to the Government’s apartheid policy and I regard it as a step in the right direction. Whether this policy will succeed or not, only time will tell; that remains to be seen. At any rate, it is an indication that at long last the Government is prepared to give to our Native population a system of self-government based upon the popular voting system. For the sake of our country I hope that the experiment will succeed. We know that there are many difficulties which must inevitably arise with regard to the urbanized Natives in our midst. Those difficulties are inevitable. However, I view the announcement made by the hon. the Prime Minister as an important turning point in the history of this country and can only hope that the Prime Minister’s plan in respect of our Native population will succeed. I say this in the interest of our country.

Now, having said that, I wish to deal specifically with the position of our Coloured people. Sir, surely, the hon. the Prime Minister must realize that the system of local autonomy which he wishes to confer upon the Bantu, cannot in all conscience become applicable to the Coloured community. In the case of the Bantu—and excluding for a moment the position of the urbanized Native to which I referred a moment ago—the hon. the Prime Minister is confronted with a comparatively compact area, at least in relation to the Transkeian territories. He can define the borders of those territories, and generally speaking he can lay down the areas in respect of which this local autonomy is to apply. But in the case of the Coloured people, they are not restricted to any compact area. The Coloured people have lived and will continue to live, as the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs and others who live in the Cape know, in our cities and in our rural areas and they are intermixed with the White people of this country. They have no separate homelands of their own like the Bantu. They are inextricably bound up with the White people of this country, both in regard to the areas in which they live as well as in the economic and industrial fields. Sir, anyone even with a superficial knowledge of the Coloured people will realize how impractical it is to deal with them on the same basis as the hon. the Prime Minister proposes to deal with the Bantu. Now, let us examine the Government’s policy with regard to the future of our Coloured people. The hon. the Prime Minister has again declared in this House in the course of this debate that the Government’s policy was enunciated by him in the plan which he presented to the Coloured Affairs Department in December last. Shorn of the verbiage contained in that statement and briefly summarized, the Prime Minister’s plan is as follows: Firstly he proposes to establish local self-government for the Coloured people; secondly he proposes to establish a number of Coloured municipalities in places like Athlone, Bellville South and part of Johannesburg. Then he proposes to establish a Coloured Parliament which will have an Executive Committee akin to a Cabinet, as he says, and which will consist of four Cabinet Members who will control respectively land and technical training, local councils, education and welfare and health services. He went on in his statement to say this, that the only contact which will take place between the Coloured Parliament and the Central Parliament will be through the hon. the Prime Minister himself and through the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs. He went on to say that he envisages that the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs will assume the role of a Minister of External Affairs in so far as liaison between the Coloured Parliament and the Central Parliament is concerned. Finally his plan envisages the establishment of a Finance and Development Corporation for the Coloured people.

I want to deal briefly with the practicability of giving effect to this master plan proposed by the hon. the Prime Minister in so far as the Coloured people are concerned. But before I do so I want to say in all fairness that in regard to the positive proposals on the part of the Government, particularly in relation to the economic sphere, the Coloured people are mindful of the advantages which are envisaged for them and are grateful for what is being promised to them. I want to say this immediately. That is the general feeling. There is, however, a fundamental aspect which the hon. the Prime Minister has failed to take into account when dealing with our Coloured people, and that fundamental aspect is this. The Coloured people feel that if they were to accept unequivocally the Government’s master plan for them, they will of necessity be accepting the hon. the Prime Minister’s definition that the South African nation is a White nation whose affairs—and here I use the Prime Minister’s own words—must always be kept in the hands of the White people. It is a thousand pities that this fundamental approach motivates the Government’s thinking in this all-important matter. If only the Government were to realize that in the Coloured people they have 1,500,000 souls who are the natural allies of the White people in this country and that by dealing with these people fairly and holding out to them some hope that they will not remain in a position of permanent racial inferiority in this country, I am sure we could win back the goodwill and confidence of these people. Sir, does the Government not realize what a terrific change for the better there would be in the outlook in this country and in the outside world’s opinion of us, if we could bring our Coloured citizens back into the fold so as to enable them to take their place with the White people in upholding and protecting our position in this country and in resisting outside aggression and pressure? The hon. the Prime Minister’s plan for the Coloured people, while bringing to them, as I have indicated, some very short-term advantages in the economic sphere, by no means breaches the gulf that exists between this essentially Westernized group in our midst and the White people of South Africa. Let us examine some of the details that the Prime Minister has set forth in his proposals. The Prime Minister bases his approach to the position of the Coloured people on his contention, and again I use his words, that boundaries minimize friction. That seems to be a favourite expression on the part of the Prime Minister—that boundaries minimize friction. My answer to this contention is that in the very nature of our population setup in this country, and in the Cape particularly, it is impossible to establish a boundary and lay down that the Coloured people shall live within that boundary. It is impossible to do that. The Coloured people’s relationship with the Whites in the economic field alone in this area is so interwoven that it is impossible to set aside an area for the Coloured people which will be circumscribed by boundaries. I want to emphasize that aspect in dealing with the hon. the Prime Minister’s fundamental approach when he says that boundaries will minimize friction. I say it is impossible to establish boundaries as far as the Coloured people are concerned. The Prime Minister then goes on to say that apartheid is the better policy for the Coloured people because, to use his own words, it offers each group self-control. The Prime Minister acknowledges that the Coloured people cannot be given homelands like the Bantu because so many of them live in our cities and so many live on European-owned farms. But he then goes on to state that although the Coloured people cannot be set aside in their own homelands like the Bantu, they should nevertheless come under the control of the Coloured people themselves, and he goes on to say that with the co-operation of the Coloured people the machinery for local self-government may be created. Sir, to my mind the Prime Minister’s proposal is really a contradiction in terms. On the one hand he acknowledges that the Western Cape may rightly be regarded as the home of the Coloured people while in the case of the Bantu he makes it clear that they can only be here temporarily. Surely the Prime Minister realizes that a large number of Coloured people have their homes and properties in established municipalities outside their declared group areas. These Coloured owners and occupiers—and nobody knows that better than the Minister of Coloured Affairs himself—in the Cape, at any rate, have the municipal franchise by reason of the fact that they own these properties in the Cape and are occupiers of these properties in duly established municipalities in the Cape. Does the hon. the Prime Minister’s scheme envisage that these Coloured registered municipal voters will be deprived of the municipal franchise? Does he intend to restrict their vote to the Coloured municipalities which he proposes to establish under his scheme despite the fact that they are the lawful owners of properties situated in the municipalities controlled by Europeans? Has the hon. the Prime Minister taken into account that the properties owned by these Coloured property owners in the European municipalities form part of the general security which is offered in respect of municipal loans? While the Coloured person’s property therefore is still liable to hypothecation in respect of municipal loans, in accordance with the hon. the Prime Minister’s proposal these Coloured people will be deprived of any say in the municipality in which their properties are situated, despite the fact that those properties form part of the security in respect of municipal loans.

Mr. Speaker, there are many more anomalies in the Prime Minister’s idea of creating a state within a state. Take taxation proposals, for example. The hon. the Prime Minister has stated to the Coloured Affairs Council that it is not intended to have two taxing authorities. He says that all taxation will be levied by the Central Parliament, and yet the Coloured people will have no voice in the Central Parliament, according to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister intends that the Coloured people should be responsible for managing their own essential services. I take it that would apply to matters like health services, education, hospitals and such like. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister, who will no doubt reply to me in the course of this debate, what are the Government’s intentions with regard to the funds which are necessary for these essential services. Will these be made available by the Central Government, and if so on what basis? Or is it intended that the funds should be raised by the Coloured people themselves? If so, that would be in conflict with the Prime Minister’s own statement that here should not be two taxing machines. How for instance does the hon. the Prime Minister intend dealing with the indirect taxation paid by the Coloured people. We know that there are 1,500,000 souls among the Coloured people. What is going to happen to the indirect taxes contributed by them? What thought has been given to the Coloured people’s contribution to the national services? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition dealt with this point, but so far we have had no answer. What thought has been given to the Coloured people’s contribution to such matters as defending our country in case of an emergency? Will they have to organize their own army, their own police force, will they have their own courts—because according to the hon. the Prime Minister “apartheid” is better for them and offers each group independence and self-control. That is the very basis of his approach. He tells them that apartheid is better for them and that it offers each group independence and self-control. What is going to happen to them in regard to these national services? Sir, there are many more unexplained and unsatisfactory features in this master plan. We, Sir, who have had practical experience of the Coloured people in the Cape cannot see how the hon. the Prime Minister’s idea of apartheid can possibly work out in respect of the Coloured people. The hon. the Prime Minister has made a fundamental mistake in his approach of this important problem. He has completely overlooked the fact that the position of the Coloured people has become so closely interwoven, and not of recent years, but going back for centuries, so closely interwoven with that of the Europeans in South Africa that it is wholly impractical for them now to be moved in the direction envisaged by the Prime Minister in his master plan. Mr. Speaker, I say that my colleagues and I are convinced, after having given this matter the most careful thought and after having consulted some of the leading Coloureds in regard to the whole scheme, that the whole scheme is impracticable and cannot be carried out.

Mr. Speaker, the sop the hon. the Prime Minister is giving to the Coloured people, that is to provide for them economic assistance through the Development Corporation, is in the opinion of Coloured leaders not sufficient to compensate them for the perpetuation of this inferior position they will be placed in under the Government’s scheme. They are grateful for what is offered, but it is not sufficient and leaves the political position wholly unsatisfactory.

Even talk of a so-called Coloured parliament is something which the vast majority of the Coloured people will not accept. They realize that however much one may talk of a Coloured parliament, the fact remains that there will be only one real parliament in this country and that is this Central Parliament, this House of Parliament. That will be the real Parliament, not the Coloured parliament. It is this Central Parliament which will make the substantive laws of this country. According to the hon. the Prime Minister this will always remain a White Parliament.

Not the Central Parliament, but a White Parliament.

Yes, a White Parliament, and this will be the only Parliament which will make the substantive laws for this country. We will have this ludicrous position, and I use the term advisedly—that this Central Parliament will make the substantive laws of this country and the Coloured people will be forced to abide by those laws, despite the fact that they will have no say whatsoever in the election of that Parliament.

What are you doing here?

Yes, except for the indirect method of having White people to represent them here. I say that this so-called Coloured parliament will have no say whatsoever in the making of substantive laws which will affect the Coloured people, because under the Prime Minister’s plan this Central Parliament will always remain a White Parliament.

The hon. the Prime Minister in his statement exhorted the Coloured people not to place too much importance on political power. He took great pains to tell them, to urge them not to place too much importance on political power. He told them—

It is all very well for the hon. the Prime Minister to urge the Coloured people not to place too much importance on political power and political rights. He tells them that they are unimportant. But I think this is a case where the hon. the Prime Minister has two standards of principle, one for the Whites and one for the Coloured people. Because at the same time the hon. the Prime Minister is determined that the political power must be preserved for all times for the Whites. In other words, while minimizing the importance of political power as far as the Coloureds are concerned, the hon. the Prime Minister’s whole scheme recognizes the importance of political power by providing that political power will for all time be reserved in the hands of the White people of this country. Is it reasonable for the hon. the Prime Minister to expect the Coloured people to accept his basis that our nation is a White nation whose affairs in the final analysis must for all time be kept in the hands of the White people? Sir, the more one examines the hon. the Prime Minister’s proposals, the more does one realize that his approach to this problem has no relation whatsoever to reality. I offer this negative criticism to the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement not with the intention of being destructive but with the hope that the Government will realize that if it is to achieve some tangible results in the field of race relations in this country, their thinking and policy must be based on present world conditions and the present world outlook vis-à-vis South Africa.

The hon. the State President in his opening address to Parliament last Friday exhorted all of us to take into account the present international situation and to make sure that the factors which are of importance to South Africa are seen in their right perspective. Surely, Sir, the most important factor facing our country to-day is that of White and non-White relations. Surely this is one of our most pressing problems. Surely it must be obvious to anyone that if the Government can be induced to adopt a more conciliatory attitude towards that problem, not only can we win back, but we will win back, the goodwill and the friendship of our non-White citizens; but, what is even more important, we will greatly ameliorate the anti-South African world attitude. Sir, the trend of events throughout the world, and more particularly on this continent, must surely indicate to the Government that no time must be lost in tackling this pressing problem. The way in which the hon. the Prime Minister has indicated during the course of this debate his willingness to grant self-government and independence to the Transkei, is an indication that he realizes that time is precious and that no more precious time should be lost in tackling this most pressing problem. Sir, I say that the same urgency exists in respect of the Coloured people. In giving serious thought to the matter one asks oneself a very simple question. It is a question which I am sure is in the mind of practically all White people in this country: What is it that the vast majority of the White people in South Africa really desire? Briefly stated, and confining the answer to essentials, I would say that bye and large the vast majority of the White people of South Africa wish to safeguard their own future in our country.

How right you are!

At the same time they must realize that this can only be achieved by providing scope for the legitimate aspirations of other national groups in South Africa. We all realize, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot possibly safeguard our future and the future of our children in this country if we are going to ignore the aspirations of other national groups in South Africa, and if we ignore the aspirations of these people who are in our midst, who are here with us and who are here to stay. To ignore the non-White people of South Africa can only lead to internal strife and chaos, apart from aggravating the external pressure on South Africa. Sir, when I talk about external pressure, we must realize that our internal problems have now unfortunately become internationalized. However much we all resent and would indeed resist any interference in our internal affairs, we must not lose sight of the fact that in present world conditions racial discrimination has become a political issue even in countries where they have no such problem of their own. I repeat that the South African racial problem has become internationalized. South Africa has reached the stage where it can no longer claim to have exclusive rights over our racial problems. Almost every issue in our country affects nationalism and race. We know from bitter experience that this arouses tremendous sympathy in the outside world and once passionate sympathies are allowed to cloud one’s judgment, there is no knowing how far things may go. Our first mission therefore is in all our deliberations to bear in mind the absolute necessity of providing adequate scope for the legitimate aspirations of all the other national groups in South Africa. I prefaced my remarks this afternoon by saying that what the hon. the Prime Minister is doing in regard to the Transkei is a step in the right direction. I ask that similar consideration be given to our Coloured people.

May I say that I think it was also very unfortunate that in the hon. the President’s Opening Speech reference was made to our South African nation as though it only consisted of the White people. The Government must of course accept full responsibility for the spreading of this conception in the outside world that the South African nation in the eyes of the Government only consists of 3,000,000 White people. It is true that in his Speech the State President made reference to the fact that the State grants others the freedoms and the rights which it claims for itself, but that statement does little to counteract the harm that has been done by the hon. the Prime Minister himself by creating the impression and contending that the South African nation comprises only the White population. I repeat that we can never have peace and prosperity in this country and we can never overcome this anti-South African attitude in the outside world if we ignore the aspirations of the other national groups.

Now I want to deal particularly with the position of the Coloured people in this regard. I think that every reasonable citizen will agree with me when I say that it is extremely difficult to find any sound and convincing argument in logic, in morals, or even in expediency, why the Cape Coloured people should be treated as a separate group in South Africa. Apart from the fact that the Cape Coloured people share to a very large extent the ancestry of the White man here, they share the traditions, the languages, the religion, the culture, and the mode of living of the White man in this country. Their standard of living is that of the White man, other than the fact that by reason of their economic position they can unfortunately not rise to the heights enjoyed by the better classes of our White population. Despite the fact that they are in this lower economic group, to an ever-extending degree the Coloured people have adopted the standards of the White people in this country. In the light of this factual position, I ask whether there can be any justification whatever for continuing to impose upon these people the disabilities which have been inflicted upon them in recent years. Sir, these Coloured people, comprising 1,500,000 people, do not possess their own defined areas in this country. They live in our midst. They have no other homeland. They cannot be partitioned in the way the Government intends to partition the Bantu. The Coloured people are inextricably wound up with the Whites in this country. Their economic future is interwoven with our own economic future. For these reasons I say that they cannot be treated as a separate group. The Government itself recognizes the important and close link which exists between the Coloured and European section of our population. I am reminded of a statement made by the Government’s own mouth-piece in that regard, a speech by the then hon. Minister of the Interior, Mr. Tom Naudé. In addressing the Council for Coloured Affairs on the occasion of the visit of the British Prime Minister, Mr. Macmillan, to this country, this is what Minister Naudé, the then Minister of the Interior said—

These were the words used by the then Minister of the Interior, Mr. Tom Naudé and I ask whether the hon. the Prime Minister thinks that his proposals in regard to the future of the Coloured people are likely to strengthen these bonds of friendship. No, Sir, I think to the contrary—it will have the opposite effect, it will have the effect of further alienating them from us. I say that the sooner we try to resolve this conflict between the Government and the Coloured people, the sooner will positive steps be taken to bring about peace and racial harmony in South Africa. Surely, we must all realize that under present world conditions, in the face of world hostility towards South Africa, it is in the interest of our country to gather unto ourselves every possible ally. The Coloured people are one of the few human groups under present world conditions which we can draw to us. They have remained faithful and loyal to our Government institutions, they have stood by the forces of law and order in this country at times when they were under great pressure to do otherwise. Their history shows, as Mr. Naudé said in his speech, that they have at all times stood by the White people of this country. What more glorious opportunity can the Government wish for to make a human approach to them? I say that a failure on our part to make this human approach may result in disaster from which nobody may escape. I repeat that there exist no convincing reasons whatsoever why these people should be treated as a separate group.

I want to conclude by saying that I was struck very forcibly the other day by a leader which appeared in the Burger on 15 December, dealing with the future of the Coloured people in the light of the Prime Minister’s statement to the Coloured Affairs Department. In the course of that editorial, the leader writer said this—

He then goes on to say—

Then he goes on to say this—

Generally speaking, I am quite prepared to agree with this expression of opinion. Rome was not built in one day. But the hon. the Prime Minister’s scheme, his whole answer in regard to the question of political rights denies this future, denies that this is not the final answer. If the hon. the Prime Minister wants to win back the goodwill of our Coloured people and thus help South Africa, he should avail himself of the earliest opportunity of telling the Coloured people that this is not the final answer, that in due course it is the intention of the Government to give to them the rights to which they are entitled as citizens of this country.

I have shown that the whole scheme of the hon. the Prime Minister breaks down in essentials when carefully examined. If we are to build on solid foundations for the future, let us do it in co-ordination and consultation with Coloured leadership, let us build and plan in co-operation with those leaders the vital and orderly co-existence of Whites and Coloureds taking into account human dignities and freedoms. To deny, as the hon. the Prime Minister is doing, the Coloureds any say in the nation’s affairs, to insist in the final analysis that ours is a White nation, whose affairs must be kept in the hands of the White people for always, can in our view never bring about orderly coexistence which is so necessary and vital in the interests of our country, particularly under present world conditions.

I think one can say of the United Party that never in the history of politics has a great party deteriorated to such an extent in so short a time, and I think the individual primarily responsible for that deterioration is the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). The hon. member for Yeoville has been the chief propagandist of the United Party since 1948, and during these 14 years he led his party from one disaster to the other, he himself becoming a political refugee in the process. I must say in passing, however, that the hon. member for Yeoville is an asset to the National Party. Between him and the Rand Daily Mail, they have gained us thousands of recruits. Now the hon. member for Yeoville is not without ability. He is eloquent, he is a good debater, but above all, he has the knack of presenting the weakest and most puerile arguments in such a manner that his own supporters actually believe them. Mr. Speaker, it was amusing to see the confusion in the ranks of the United Party after the hon. the Prime Minister had made his statement. [Laughter.] I realize of course that the line of attack that the Opposition had originally decided upon was quite different. They intended reproaching the National Party for not carrying out its promises; they were going to accuse us of bluffing the public; that we were afraid of losing votes; to demand that the Government carry out its policy. Well, as I say, the hon. the Prime Minister in his announcement caused considerable consternation in their ranks, and the result is that during these two and a half days’ debate, one has heard more puerile arguments against the policy of the National Party than we have ever heard from the Opposition benches—and that includes the hon. member for Yeoville. I want to give some examples of the type of puerile argument, and I first want to deal with the hon. member for Natal South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell). He started off by saying that the public and Parliament would now appreciate that the Prime Minister had meant all along what he said in regard to the independence of Bantu territories. But in the same speech he said that the Prime Minister and his party were afraid to make such an announcement before the election.

Hear, hear!

Another argument was that the Prime Minister made this announcement under pressure. The hon. member for Yeoville said “Hear, hear!” when I referred to the statement of the hon. member for South Coast that we were afraid to make such an announcement before the election, the implication being that we were afraid of losing votes. Mr. Speaker, there will be a by-election in Aliwal North very shortly. Aliwal North is a constituency that is not only on the border of a Native area, but part of the constituency is in a Native area. We are going to see as a result of that by-election whether the announcement of this policy is going to cost us any votes. I think the contrary will be the case.

Then the hon. member said that the announcement was premature. He spoke about civil war. Then he said that the Transkeian Natives would fly to UNO as soon as they would receive self-government, that their leaders would fly to UNO. Then he spoke about arms being smuggled across the Portuguese border. Just as if that could not take place to-day! That was one of the puerile arguments that he used against the creation of the independent Bantu homeland. And one of his very important arguments was that recently a game ranger was killed by poachers in the Umfolozi Game Reserve, and what might not happen if we gave them independence. Then he stated that Zululand would now, now, now, now, demand independence. He spoke about internal bloodshed. But to crown all his arguments, he said: “Look at Chaka’s grave which is outside the Bantu territory! Now they are going to demand the incorporation of Chaka’s grave in their new Bantustan”. That is the type of puerile argument we have had against this policy of granting independence to Bantu territories. The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) was even more puerile. He quoted Dr. Malan and Mr. Strijdom and myself and he said that we repudiated complete territorial apartheid and that we were now applying it. I don’t know whether it was merely obtuseness on his part, Sir, or whether he made an attempt to mislead the House, because there is a very big difference between complete territorial apartheid and the policy as announced by the hon. the Prime Minister. Territorial apartheid, that we said we do not support, would mean the taking of every Black man from the European area and putting him back in a reserve. But that is the type of puerile argument we get against the policy announced by the hon. the Prime Minister. Then he spoke about giving away what our forefathers shed their blood for. Mr. Speaker, these hon. gentlemen are prepared to give away the whole of South Africa, which our forefathers shed their blood for. You had the hon. member for Yeoville, Sir, with a lot of waving of arms, with some of his usual offensiveness, trying to bolster up a very weak case. He started off by criticizing the Radio Corporation as an argument against the Bantustan policy. Then he said that the Prime Minister made this announcement merely on the insistance of his Leader, the Leader of the Opposition. He wanted some credit for his party. Then he spoke about a totalitarian state within a state as an argument against this policy, and he spoke about all wars since the beginning of the century having resulted from minorities in states. Mr. Speaker, I am going to deal with the policy of the United Party later, but they want the Europeans in South Africa to be a minority, and the European minority in South Africa will be dominated by the non-Europeans.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister?

No, I am not answering questions now. He spoke about the independence of small areas while the majority of the Bantu were living in other areas. Mr. Speaker, according to their plan, every Bantu nation will have its own Parliament and will control its own affairs. I should like to see what the boundaries of those areas are going to be. Are they going to deal with the affairs of all these thousands and millions of Natives in the White areas too? That is the type of argument we have had. Then he spoke about not sufficient capital being invested in the Bantu areas for industrial development and then he said that the announcement by the Prime Minister was an attempt merely to evade responsibility by giving sham political rights. If that is so, Sir, why are they so concerned? Why have they been telling the House and the country for two days about the tremendous dangers confronting South Africa if the Government’s policy is implemented? Now he says it is a sham policy!

Mr. Speaker, the United Party is the official Opposition and they regard themselves as the alternative Government. Their sole objective is to get into power and in order to get into power they must persuade a sufficient number of voters to give them a majority. They cannot merely adopt a negative attitude in this House. It is their duty, if they reject the Government’s policy, to put an alternative policy, their policy, before Parliament and the country. This has been a golden opportunity for the United Party to place their alternative policy before Parliament and before the country. During the two days’ debate, all we have heard about race federation, which is their policy, has been a passing reference to it. I do not know, of course, whether they have decided to abandon the policy of race federation and whether they intend appointing another committee, but until they say so we must accept that it is still their policy. For two days they have been telling the House of the dangers which will confront South Africa if our policy is implemented. Of course, there are dangers. The Prime Minister admitted that in his speech. But Parliament and the country have the right to know whether the dangers to South Africa, if their policy is applied, will be greater than the dangers to South Africa if our policy is applied. South Africa and Parliament have the right to know what to expect if the United Party comes into office.

Most intelligent people know.

Apparently their own members are not intelligent because they do not know it. Because they have failed in their duty to explain this, I am going to deal with their policy.

I thought we had no policy!

To do so adequately I must, of course, give the background and expose the United Party’s expediency and their political dishonesty.

On a point of order …

Mr. Speaker, I was not referring to any particular member but to the party.

Yes, but the entire party is sitting here.

I withdraw the words “political dishonesty” and substitute the word “expediency”. In 1951 the former great leader of the United Party, Mr. Strauss, made an announcement. According to the Star of 1 December 1951 he stated that “the United Party policy is clear and straightforward; it is the Hertzog policy of 1936”. But apparently that statement did not satisfy their supporters and shortly after that a committee was appointed to draft a new Native policy. In 1953 they entered the election with the slogan of “White leadership with justice”, But in spite of that slogan they were badly beaten at the polls so they decided on another committee. In 1957 the United Party congress, writhing in agony, gave birth to the Senate Plan, which they said would ensure White leadership for all time. Very few delegates to that Congress understood what the Senate Plan actually involved, but they were assured that this Senate Plan would ensure victory at the polls the following year. It is very interesting to see what the political correspondent of the Sunday Express wrote and how he described that congress. He wrote—

He says further—

I do not know whether these political correspondents really think that their leader is an adolescent. They either describe the hon. Leader of the Opposition as big and calm or handsome or that he is a piece of cheese-cake, etc., we have had all that over the years. That is the usual description that they apply to the hon. Leader of the Opposition. But, Sir, in spite of big, calm Sir de Villiers Graaff’s efforts to retain unity, it was only two years later that the United Party Congress writhed in agony again and gave birth to the Progressive Party and big, calm, poor Sir de Villiers Graaff could not do anything about it. However, they gave birth to the Senate Plan and with that they fought the 1958 election. But in 1958 they were even more soundly beaten than in 1953. We found the following headlines in the Rand Daily Mail of 18 February 1959 only seven months after the election—

During the same week when the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) was challenged to state his party’s colour policy he replied “I am not prepared to put a millstone around my neck”. Of course, Sir, we know the hon. member for South Coast for his engaging frankness. It is only a few months ago that he told the Progressives in Natal that they must go and frolic in the surf with Coolies and non-Whites. However, they appointed another committee to formulate another colour policy. White leadership had proved a failure; the Senate Plan had proved a failure, and so they decided to do something else. The Progressive Party had been established; the prevailing wind among the anti-Government force was blowing in the direction of liberalism, so the United Party had to trim its sails accordingly. So in 1960 another new plan was announced. They called it ordered advance.

You are making a progressive speech now.

I am making a type of progressive speech that the hon. member does not like. They called it ordered advance. Coloureds were to be restored to the Common Roll, elect their members of their own race to Parliament; consultation with the Indians and parliamentary representation; European representation for the urban Bantu. But soon after the announcement of this plan they found that the wind was blowing even more strongly in the direction of liberalism and of the Progressives and they decided to appoint another committee. In August, last year, Sir, the congress of the United Party at Bloemfontein again writhed in agony, but big, calm, Sir de Villiers stepped into the breach and announced the birth of race federation. The United Party reminds me of a primitive Bantu woman. She is always either pregnant or she is carrying a baby on her back.

Who is the father?

I am coming to that. The United Party is continually in a state of labour, but they have no sooner given birth to a child than they abandon it and the whole process starts all over again. But there is one big difference between a primitive Bantu woman and the United Party. The Native woman does not abandon her child and at least knows who the father is.

One political journalist described the scene at the birth of race federation as follows—

He said further—

Not even to-day—

I should say like hungry ducks—

So everybody is happy! They only remained happy for two months because two months later we had a general election and their happiness disappeared completely, because the United Party took the biggest flogging in their history. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it was not a beating, it was a slaughter and that, Sir, in spite of the powerful support of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) and his ten followers. For some five months since the announcement of this race federation policy the people have been trying to find out what this new image really is. During the election campaign the Leader of the Opposition and other speakers refused to give details. They merely gave the broad outline and said “Put us in power and then we will tell you”. Naturally, the voters did not trust them and did not put them into power. Since then some light has been thrown on this race federation policy by none less an individual than the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). In the Sunday Times of 21 January 1962 he wrote an article in which he explained race federation, what its implications were and what it meant. After sifting the weeds from the chaff, one can come to the following conclusion. I am only dealing with the most important principles. He states in the article—

There will be a central parliament. Without exception each race will, on a communal roll, elect representatives to that parliament, that is the Bantu, the Coloureds, the Indians and I presume the Whites as well—the Whites are also a race. The hon. member for South Coast went further. He said that each Bantu nation would have separate representation; all on communal rolls. Every Bantu nation—there are about seven or eight of them—will have representation. Evidently the urban Bantu, the Coloured people, the Indians and the Whites will all have representation in this federal parliament on a communal basis. Of course, Mr. Speaker, in the past they condemned the communal vote. Now it is the very thing. There are certain questions that one wants to ask them and they should reply to them. The party has been committed to restore the Coloureds to the Common Roll together with the Whites in the Cape Province and they will have the right to send members of their own race to Parliament. Now as that is so, Mr. Speaker, will the rest of the Coloureds in the rest of the country have their own separate representation in this federal parliament? And if so, under the devolution of powers, will that separate group of Coloureds, with their own separate parliament, control education and all those other matters to which the hon. member for Yeoville has referred? He says in this article—

Now what are those matters? He says—

There will evidently be Indian courts, Coloured courts and Bantu courts—

Apparently each race is going to have its own broadcasting system. He goes on to say—

And he says—

Every separate racial parliament is going to have these certain powers. The Coloured people will be divided between a Common Roll with the Whites in the Cape Province and those on a communal roll outside the Cape Province. Either one section or the other must have these powers.

What they actually envisage is a central parliament consisting of representatives of all the different races and a separate parliament for each race. The hon. member for Yeoville, referring to Professor Matthews, says in this article that Professor Matthews might even become Prime Minister of a constituent government. For two days we have been hearing a great deal about the boundaries of these Bantu homelands. I wonder where the boundaries of these different governments are going to be—the governments for the Coloureds, for the Indians, for the different Bantu races?

Where is your boundary for the Coloured people?

Where are these boundaries going to be? The hon. member for Yeoville further states this—

I think we have the right to ask this question: What is his yardstick for civilization? Is it Std. IV, Std. V, Std. VI or Std. VII? Is it an income of R200 or R400 per annum? They must have some yardstick to measure this standard of civilization because each race is going to receive representation on the basis of its stage of civilization. It says further that there is no fixed number but the number for each race will be adjusted from time to time.

I think the most important question that can be asked is this: How long will it take before the non-Whites in this federal parliament outnumber the Whites? After all, Sir, the Coloured people in South Africa have reached a high stage of civilization. The Indian people have reached a high stage of civilization and the Bantu people are progressing rapidly to a certain stage of civilization. There are only 3,000,000 Whites in South Africa as against 12,000,000 non-Whites. Now, I ask them seriously: How long will it take before the non-Whites—they are not going to limit the number of representatives—outnumber the Whites in this federal parliament? I think the country wants to know. They have said nothing about the cabinet. Obviously they must accept non-Whites in the cabinet of this federal parliament and if they do that, how long will it be before the non-Whites in that cabinet outnumber the Whites on the basis of the test that they propose to put for the representation of the different races. The test, Sir, is the stage of civilization. They have not stated to the House or to the country what the yardstick is that they are going to use to measure the stage of civilization. If we have to use the yardstick used in our neighbouring territories, it won’t be many years before the non-Whites in this federal parliament will outnumber the Whites and when the non-Whites in this federal cabinet will outnumber the Whites. Now what is the bleak prospect confronting South Africa if this policy is implemented? First of all, you will have a federal parliament with a majority in parliament and in the cabinet of non-Whites and in addition to that you will probably have seven or eight non-White parliaments with certain powers that have been given to them by the federal parliament. And then, Mr. Speaker, these hon. gentlemen have the impudence to talk about the dangers confronting South Africa if our policy is implemented. Their policy will destroy South Africa completely. That hon. member had the impudence to say that our policy will destroy South Africa! There is no doubt about it that their so-called race federation, with a majority of non-Whites in their federal parliament, with seven or eight non-White parliaments and with a majority of non-Whites in their cabinet, will surely destroy South Africa. Mr. Speaker, I want to illustrate the inherent—you have asked me to withdraw the word “dishonesty” so I will say “expediency” of the United Party. In the same article the hon. member says that they will retain influx control. How long will they retain influx control if they have a majority of non-Whites in this federal parliament? Do they for one moment think that when the non-Whites have representation in this federal parliament that they will be satisfied with this type of discriminatory law? He says that they are not going to give full trade union rights to the Bantu. Why not? Because they are afraid of losing votes. Once the non-Whites have representation in this federal parliament they cannot withhold trade union rights from the Bantu. The hon. gentleman says that they will not abolish the colour bar in the Mines and Works Act unless labour and management agree. Management already agree; they have been agitating for the removal of the colour bar. The hon. member speaks about “labour”. Now what labour is he referring to? Black labour, non-White labour or White labour? Non-White labour, which is far in the majority, want the abolition of the colour bar. But this is merely another bluff to try to retain or to get the vote of the mineworkers, so the hon. member says no, they are not going to abolish the colour bar in the Mines and Works Act until management and labour agree.

Mr. Speaker, some time ago the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, speaking in Johannesburg, said that they were not the middle-of-the-road party but that they were “the road”. There is an old adage that runs “the road to Hell is paved with good intentions”. I leave it at that. A short while ago a letter from a European woman in Kenya was published in a South African journal. I want to read two extracts which I think will interest the House. She writes as follows—

She concludes—

Mr. Speaker, the choice before South Africa is perfectly simple. It is the choice of appeasement and continual concessions which must inevitably lead to the surrender of our birth right and the destruction of our country. Or it is a choice of separate development and the retention of our heritage. I have no doubt in my own mind what the people of South Africa will choose.

I seem to be in the lucky position, Sir, of being the only person in this House that won’t be called upon to define any boundary, racial or territorial. I am also the only person in this House apparently who belongs to a party that does not have to indulge in “swart gevaar” tactics, either of the kind used by members of the official Opposition yesterday or of the kind which has just been used by the hon. the Minister of Transport. It seems to me that my party is the only party in this country, apart perhaps from one other smaller party, which does not shake with fear at the implications of accepting South Africa as what it is and that, Sir, is a multi-racial country.

I want to examine the plan that was put forward by the hon. the Prime Minister and listened to very attentively by this House and I want to examine it in as impartial a way as I possibly can. I want to give credit if credit can be given and to high-light the shortcomings, as I see them, of this plan. To my way of thinking, Sir, the main significance of the plan advanced by the hon. the Prime Minister realizes that the ultimate fate of this country is not going to be determined simply by his own supporters, by the people who put him into power nor, for that matter, only by the White electorate, be they pro-Government or anti-Government. The fate of this country is also going to depend on the needs and wishes of our 12,000,000 non-Europeans and also it is going to be determined by the pressures of the outside world. The hon. the Prime Minister has realized that it is essential that he gives to the non-European and to the outside world some token of his sincerity, as far as his claims for having a just and equitable solution for our racial problems. He has stated specifically that the new constitution he envisages for the Transkei will be based on the principles of Western democracy. I want to say at once that I believe in so saying he has committed himself to a modern approach to our problems. If this is to mean anything at all, if he is sincere in what he says, then it must mean that the Government intends to give to the Africans in the Transkei an elective system in the place of the old authoritarian Bantu system of chief and council. And if that is so, then it is a step in the direction of modern thinking. It acknowledges at once that things have changed in Africa and that we have to change with them. We have to change with the rest of Africa. It gets away, Sir, from this old idea of bloc system of voting, of voting on a communal basis and it accepts the fact that the Africans have a right to some form of understandable franchise and that they should be trained to use that franchise in a system which is recognized to be democratic. Now, whether, of course, the type of franchise that the hon. the Prime Minister envisages in the speech that he gave us, is going to be the type recommended by the committee which is sitting at the present stage, I do not know. I was hoping that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration would have told us a little more about that recess committee, but he did not do so. The Prime Minister will see that I am taking his statement at its face value and that I am taking it seriously. I hope, therefore, that he will take me seriously when I tell him that it is going to require a great deal of explanation from him and his party before the very many reservations that I have about his scheme will be satisfied, and before I can accept his contention—and I use his own words—that his programme for the development and political self-realization of each national group “must destroy the fantasy that White extremism held sway in South Africa.” He must, first of all, convince me that what he envisages is going to be more than simply an extended form of local government for 1,500,000 people to enjoy powers that do not go very much further than the powers enjoyed by the old Bunga. He says that the Transkei will have a Black parliament and a Black cabinet but the portfolios that really matter will be controlled by this Parliament, that is to say the portfolios of finance, without which of course autonomy and independence will mean nothing for the Transkei. He said that Justice would be retained by the White man’s Parliament and so too will Foreign Affairs. Well, Sir, that means that in the foreseeable future, anyway, presumably the hon. the Minister for Bantu Administration will still be able to issue banishment orders on citizens of the Transkei. And it seems, too, that the hon. the Minister for Justice will be able to declare a state of emergency there. The Government says that both Agriculture and Education, both very important portfolios, are in fact to be handed over to the Transkeian authority. Now, does this mean that the Government is prepared to allow the Transkeian Parliament to abolish Bantu education, a system which is hated by the Bantu, a system the repeal of which they have been asking for ever since it has been instituted. When he says that he is going to hand over Agriculture to the Transkeian Parliament …

They asked for Bantu education.

A very great number of Africans have asked that it be repealed, and the vast majority of educated Africans have asked that it be repealed. Now, if he hands Agriculture over to the Transkeian Parliament, will he allow them then to change from the old tribal system of agriculture? I ask this question specifically because it is basic to the development of a modern agrarian economy in the Transkei or in the Reserves. I ask it because it was one of the major recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission Report which this Government rejected and which the hon. the Prime Minister himself said had to be rejected because unless it were rejected it would mean the end of the tribal system in the Transkei. But the most important drawback, and one which the Government has not yet explained away, and the most important drawback to the Prime Minister’s scheme for political emancipation for the Transkei and later, for this is a progressive system, to the other homelands, is that the people whom he wishes to enfranchise do not live in those homelands any longer. The vast majority do not live there. Half of the Bantu tribes which used to reside in the Transkei no longer live there to-day. Only one-sixth of the 3,000,000 Zulus live in Zululand; the rest live outside Zululand. The 1,000,000 Swazi who actually live within the Republic no longer even have hope of a homeland at all, since the last chance of incorporation of the High Commission territories has now disappeared. Throughout the Prime Minister’s White Republic live millions of Bantu on the White farms and in the towns. These millions have lost all connection with the tribal areas. Many of them have never set foot in a reserve. There are third and fourth generation Africans who are residing on White farms and in the towns, and I want to point out that the vast majority of people who are normally politically active in a community, people between the ages of say 18 to 50 years, are in fact outside the reserves. Now the Prime Minister is fond of using the analogy of workers who go from Italy to Switzerland, and he says that the position of the Africans here who come to work in our areas is analagous to that. Sir, that is no analogy at all. The Italians who go to Switzerland are not Swiss subjects and can expect no rights in Switzerland. But the Africans with whom the Prime Minister will be dealing are South African-born citizens, and millions of them are permanently resident in this area, in the White areas of South Africa. They are not in any way comparable to the Italian workers who work for a time in Switzerland and then go back to Italy. They are not even analagous to the Basutos, because the Basutos are largely a migratory people, coming to the Union to earn money on the gold mines or working on the farms and then going back to Basutoland. The vast majority are migrant workers, and that is my point. But I am talking of the millions of Africans who are permanently resident in the so-called White areas and that is why I say they are not comparable with the migratory workers of Italy who go to Switzerland, or with the migratory workers of Basutoland, who come into the Republic and return to Basutoland.

Now one must ask immediately, of course, whether the arrangements, the financial arrangements to be made for the Transkei, can possibly make it an economically viable state. If the answer is no, then political independence means little or nothing. It does not help to have a Black Parliament and Cabinet sitting in the Transkei if the people languish in poverty, and the Government, we know, is already hopelessly behind on any programme which could adequately provide for the existing population, never mind any increase in population, at any decent standard of living. The crux of the whole problem in the Transkei, and in the other homelands, is not the retention of the existing population there, but the removal of the surplus population from those areas. They cannot sustain their existing population and they certainly will not be able to sustain an increase in population. Even within the reserves themselves the crux of the problem of course is also the removal of the people from agricultural occupations to secondary and tertiary occupations. Now the Government is far behind on any programme for the removal of people from agriculture to secondary and tertiary industry. We know that the Tomlinson Commission recommended £30,000,000 to be spent in ten years on this specific aspect of the development of the reserves alone. The figures given by the hon. the Minister to the hon. member for East London (North) is that in the four years between 1956 and 1960 the Government has spent £70,000, although the amount recommended by the Commission was £30,000,000 in ten years.

The hon. the Prime Minister has departed from his former policy by stating that he will allow, with many restrictions of course, the injection of White capital and enterprise into the reserves. This, too, was one of the recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission which the Government at the time rejected. This may be of some help, but I do not believe it will be of such help that it could possibly make those areas viable economic propositions, because private capital notoriously goes to areas which yield the possibility of profit, and I do not believe that any investigation has shown that with all the injection of capital and all the will in the world, those areas can be made economically viable. If the Prime Minister had offered this scheme only as a plan to train Africans in local government, I think one could have said that there is much to commend it, but he is not offering it in that light at all; he offers it as a positive solution of our racial problems. He is declaring it to the world as the proof of his good intentions in regard to the Bantu and the proof of his intention to implement the positive side of apartheid. I do not know why he believes that the world necessarily will be pleased about this, because the world does not want him to implement the Government’s idea of apartheid, but to abandon it. Last year the Prime Minister found at the Prime Ministers’ Conference that he could not convince people of his good intentions, and at U.N. the Minister of Foreign Affairs found that he could not convince anyone, not even our former allies, of the Government’s good intentions, and therefore we now have the psychological windowdressing of self-government for the Transkei, and it is being advertised now to see whether it can bring more felicitous results to South Africa so far as her relations with the external world is concerned. Unfortunately I do not believe that this plan per se can alter the situation one iota, either at home or abroad. It will do nothing to promote internal peace or to further our economic development, and it will do nothing to improve our external relations, because it will not make the slightest difference to the basic factor that govern our existence in this country. We shall remain as economically integrated as ever before. The numbers of non-Whites in the White areas will go on increasing and we will be as basically inter-dependent racially as we ever were.

The facts disclosed by the 1960 census showed that in the eleven main metropolitan areas of South Africa non-Whites outnumered Whites in an increasing ratio. The Prime Minister says it does not matter that there are more non-Whites in the White areas than there were before the Government came in with its apartheid policy. He says that is a natural development and sooner or later the population swing will go in the other direction, but it is interesting to see that the ratio is increasing—not only the actual increase but the ratio increase. The Census Board counted its population in 276 magisterial districts, and in not a single district did the Whites amount to even 50 per cent of the population. Does the Prime Minister seriously think that his plan for the Transkei, even with all the private capital which he hopes will be attracted there under his own stringent conditions, can develop those areas, with the £1,000,000 which he has promised those areas, with all the taxation raised from the Bantu in the Transkei and outside it? Does he think that those areas can be developed sufficiently to compete with the attraction in wage levels and general living conditions offered by the White, developed, industrialised areas of South Africa with its massive labour requirements? Does the Prime Minister really hope to attract the population away from the White areas to the reserves? The basic resources are simply not there in the reserves for any such development, and the truth is that the bulk of the African population will always reside, and reside permanently, and work in the White areas, in most cases. [Interjection.] The hon. member seems to think of the reserves as a vast labour reservoir for him to draw on, to use to work and then to send back to the reserves. Sir, I thought that was the very idea that this Government was trying to get away from. I say those people will work and they will reside in the White areas, whatever the Prime Minister thinks. And so to the majority of people in this country, and to the outside world, what we will have is what we had before, and that is “Wit baasskap” for the majority of people in this country and covering the vast territorial area of South Africa. So we cannot deceive ourselves that this plan will make any difference, either at home or abroad. All the barrage of restrictions that make the ordinary life of the African so difficult, restrictions on mobility and on employment and restrictions as far as his personal rights are concerned, all those will remain for the vast majority of Africans who will always live in the area of the Prime Minister’s White Republic. To me the fact that hon. members have grasped at this straw, at re-establishing their self-respect in the ethical basis for their policies, is simply an example of the lengths to which their own self-deception can go. Does the Prime Minister really think that his plan for the Transkei will now make it possible for our erstwhile allies to defend us in the councils of the world, or that it will silence Western criticism? The Government attributes most of the criticism of South Africa to an attempt to placate the Black states of Africa. In part, this may be true, and as far as it is true, it is regrettable. But Western opposition to South Africa is primarily concentrated on our policies, which are fundamentally anti-Western because they deny all the basic concepts of the Western sense of values. The opening speech of the President high-lighted the dangers of Communism in Africa, but I want to point out that the Western fight against Communism is not only that it is an aggressive system but also because it is one which denies freedom of thought, of speech and of movement, freedom of the Press, of learning, and of economic competition. The Government professes to uphold Western principles, yet they deny to a greater or lesser extent to the non-Whites of this country all those freedoms that are entrenched in Western values, and some of those denials are actually entrenched in legislation. So, does the plan to give self-government to the Transkei change any of these things fundamentally? The Government claims that this is just a beginning; it is late, but it is better to start now than never at all. It claims that other rights and responsibilities will gradually be extended to the Transkei and to the other Bantu areas, but nobody, with the best will in the world, can see in this plan any hope for the Africans in the so-called White areas of the country who will always be here and whose numbers will increase. The bare fact is that people want to enjoy liberty and freedom and exercise rights where they spend their lives and nowhere else. They do not want to enjoy those rights in places which they have never seen and are never likely to see. Thus, to the vast majority of Black South Africans the Prime Minister’s plan brings no hope of salvation and no relief from the bitter fruits of racial discrimination. Therefore I say that the hon. the Prime Minister is having false hopes if he believes that his plan is going to silence our critics and not assist our enemies in the outside world. They have told us in the plainest terms that the reason why they reject us is because we practise racial discrimination, and there is nothing in this plan which to the vast majority of non-Whites in South Africa means a removal of racial discrimination.

Now, as to the official Opposition, it must take its share of the blame for the floundering state in which this country finds itself to-day. By pandering to the prejudices of the Whites, the United Party has for years obscured the real issues which should have been faced, and it has presented this country with no alternative policy. The Leader of the Opposition complained in his motion that the Government had not taken the public into its confidence in regard to the development of the Bantustans. I find nothing at all offensive in that motion. It is a motion probing—I believe that is the correct term—the Prime Minister and it is an innocuous motion. I shall vote for it because it will be my way of expressing, on behalf of the party I represent in this House, my vote of no confidence in this Government. I do not want to enlarge on the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has also failed to take the country into his confidence in regard to his plan for race federation. I will leave that, because my quarrel with the United Party is not important at this juncture. I believe that most people in this country have given up all hope of the United Party replacing this Government and therefore I believe that the Prime Minister is correct in one thing he has said, and other hon. members opposite are also correct when they say that before South Africa there lie only two choices. The one is the course of independent Bantustans, and the other is the course of sharing rights in a multi-racial country. My own party has chosen to share rights in a multi-racial country. I believe the Government is wrong in thinking that partial independence for the Transkei will stop there. Obviously the Africans will demand complete independence, but the Government says it is prepared to face that position. But what it is not prepared to face is that this desire for independence is not simply going to be limited to the Bantustans they are prepared to create, but this desire will also affect the millions of non-Whites living in the White areas. That is where the Government makes its mistake. This is where it is not prepared to make the necessary accommodation. Africans in the reserves and outside the reserves will go on pressing their demands for independence and for recognition of their rights as human beings. That is the important thing. The Prime Minister cannot consider South Africa as not being part of the Continent of Africa. We are affected by everything that happens on the Continent of Africa. The Progressive Party has realized this and has made accommodations to it. The Burger and members opposite have called us a party which preaches abdication. That is nonsense. What we preach is a sharing of the rights and responsibilities with those non-Whites who have reached a certain stage of civilization.

What stage?

We have always advocated the sharing of rights and responsibilities with people who have reached certain levels, and I do not think anyone can accuse us of being a party which does not state specifically what it has in mind. We have stated the educational and income levels, but I must say in passing that it amuses me to hear the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) criticizing us for daring to use educational and income levels and saying that we are therefore ignoring all the unfortunates who have not reached those levels at the present stage. One of his own proposals is that the level of the group and its responsibilities shall be related to the amount of tax paid by it. So therefore his criticism is rather ludicrous. We stand for a sharing of rights and responsibilities by all citizens of the country who have reached certain levels, and what is much more important, we stand for equal opportunities to be given to those people so that they may reach those levels, and we offer also protection of each race against domination by other races. [Laughter.] Hon. members laugh because they have no respect for constitutional government. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) has had a chance to make his speech.

As long as people have a respect for constitutional government, we can guarantee one race against domination by another. Of course we can give no guarantee against revolution in South Africa, but can the hon. member for Heilbron or the United Party? Of course not. But if constitutional government is respected and a rigid constitution is substituted for our flexible constitution, coupled with a bill of rights, there is no reason whatever why one race should dominate another.

I can only repeat what we have said over and over again. Let us make these reasonable adaptations while there is time. We are the most fortunately endowed White population on the Continent of Africa. The hon. the Minister of Transport read an extract of what was said by a woman in Kenya. Sir, this is not Kenya. We have a large, White, settled population, larger than anywhere else in the whole of Africa. Our non-White population is far advanced compared with those elsewhere. Thousands of our non-Whites have realized and appreciated the value of Western standards. We are in the most fortunately placed position in the whole of Africa. The Prime Minister and members opposite say that one man, one vote, is the only thing that the non-Whites want. We do not have to give up everything to get our Western allies back on our side, but we have to demonstrate that we have turned our backs on the practice of racial discrimination, and as far as the Africans are concerned I want to make this point. They have never yet in this country been confronted with reasonable concessions and adaptations given to them by a political party in a position to carry out those concessions. That is the point. They have never yet been placed in a position where the agreement to be reached is to be reached with a party which is in the position to grant them those concessions, and until they have been offered those concessions and have been so confronted by a party which is in a position to make good those concessions, and until they have turned those concessions down, nobody has any right whatever to say that the Africans will be satisfied with nothing less than everything. I say that if we want to save this country, and all of us are looking for a way out of our problems, if we want to save this country, there is still time. We must get away from this gloomy pessimism of the Government, with its kraal mentality. We must get away from the Opposition with its facile optimism and its vague and undefined policies, and we must offer to all our people in this country, on a basis that recognizes human dignity, a share in the manifold blessings of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) expects me to deal with her speech at length. She is the representative of a party which took part in the election with disastrous results. She said that more and more people were coming to the conclusion that the United Party can never take the place of the National Government. I agree with that, but she must understand one thing, which is far more true, and that is that the United Party or the Progressive Party will not become the ruling party if the policy of parallel development fails. What will then be implemented will not be a vague policy like that propagated by the United Party or a three-quarter policy such as that propagated by the Progressive Party, but the policy of the Afro-Asiatic states, which stands for the destruction of the authority of the White man and his extermination. Does the hon. member not realize that those in the front line of the agitators against South Africa are very sincere about what they want? I have here a work recently published by Nasser, “The Philosophy of the Revolution”, and I want to read out one paragraph to her—

He is referring to the African circle in which Egypt must interest herself—

That is how he sees the struggle, and he is candid about it. I do not say that this is true, because this Government has another pattern to offer. It wants to give the Bantu an opportunity to exercise rights in his own circle, to live his own national life in his own area, and we are trying to meet those desires without bringing about the realization of what Nasser says here, namely the extermination of 5,000,000 Whites. But the road of the Progressive Party, and to a lesser extent that of the United Party, is the road which makes such a thing possible.

But I rise really to say a few words about the matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg), the position of the Coloureds. The Leader of the Opposition wanted to know from the Prime Minister whether the present Coloured Council had been a success. He also asked whether the Prime Minister realized that when the elected members were elected, they were all returned unopposed because of the boycott campaign that was launched, and he said that in fact they do not represent the Coloured population. I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition whether this means that if anybody is returned unopposed because of a boycott by a section of his electorate, he does not represent that electoral division, because then that would also apply to some of the Coloured representatives sitting on his side and who were returned unopposed because of a boycott in their electoral divisions. I put this question to the hon. member for Peninsula, because this is also applicable to him. And is the Leader of the Opposition going to tell me that the hon. member for Peninsula does not represent the Coloureds in this House?

It was a partial boycott only.

It was also a partial boycott in respect of these members of the Coloured Council. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had a member in his party and in his caucus who was a representative of the Coloureds and he (the Leader of the Opposition) boycotted him at the election. [Laughter.] I want to ask him whether he is prepared to say in persuance of his argument and in the light of the sad spectacle that we witnessed in the case of his candidate, Mr. Eden, whom he wanted elected to represent that constituency, that the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) is not a true representative of the Coloureds? My reply to the Leader of the Opposition is that nobody has ever said that the present Union Coloured Council is in all respects representative of and enjoying the support of the whole Coloured population. But it is a fact that irrespective of the type of representation which the Coloureds had in this House or outside it, there was never anyone who could say that he was really speaking on behalf of the Coloured population. The reason is that the members of the Coloured community are inherently divided amongst themselves and they are in opposing groups, because as a Coloured population they lack group consciousness.

I shall come back later to some other points made by the Leader of the Opposition, but first of all I want to say this: I think that in our approach to the position of the Coloureds, a position which is a delicate one and which differs in some respects from that of the other racial groups in this country, it is necessary to see to what extent we agree. In the first place I think I can say that we all agree that, as far as we can see, we have no national homelands for the Coloureds in South Africa in the sense in which the Bantu have their homelands. Admittedly they have rural areas which have been reserved for them by history. These rural homelands were sadly neglected, but nobody can deny—and I think we are unanimous on this point—that by applying efficient development in these areas it will be possible to use them to a considerable extent to satisfy the Coloureds’ land hunger, for these rural areas have vast development possibilities. The Opposition will agree with this proposition unless, of course, they adopt the attitude about which I want to put a question to them in a moment, that they want to throw open these rural areas to free competition, and on this issue I think they owe us a clear statement. History has reserved 2,500,000 morgen of land for the Coloureds, and it is the duty of the Opposition, if they find any fault with the Government’s policy, to state whether they will throw open those areas to free competition. It is incumbent upon them to give us a reply to this question.

It is a very unnecessary question.

Why is it unnecessary? I think that the second point on which we agree is that their towns and urban areas can offer them opportunities for finding new avenues of employment and for developing their own community life, a privilege which the Coloureds have not had in full measure in South Africa hitherto. They have not been able to develop a community life under the conditions under which they have been living in the towns and cities. I think that the third point on which we can agree is that none of us can deny that a great number of the Coloureds will still have to be employed in the service of White enterprise for a very long time to come, in their own interest as well as that of the Whites. The fourth point on which we can agree is that because of their language and way of life the Coloureds can, if they develop and raise their status, make an important contribution to the maintenance and protection of Christian Western civilization, and although there may be a difference of opinion about the political future, we can agree that a considerable degree of economic interaction between the Coloureds and Whites will continue, notwithstanding the fact that the Coloureds are politically separated. But I think that the last point on which we can agree—and the Opposition must tell me if they think differently—is that it is our duty to the Coloured to protect him from being swallowed up by the Bantu. He wants to be protected against the Bantu; he is asking for this protection, and I think that if there is one thing about which the masses of the Coloureds are in agreement, it is that they do not want to be absorbed into the Bantu community. On these points we can agree to a considerable extent.

But I want to advance a second proposition, Mr. Speaker, and that is that for the past 100 years and longer the broad masses of the Coloured population in South Africa have not made any appreciable progress. As entrepreneur the Coloured has been kept in the background and has made very little progress. Go to any Coloured community and you will find that as entrepreneur he has made little progress. In the second place the vast masses of the Coloured population are still living in a state of poverty and backwardness. In the third place his rural areas were shamefully neglected during this period of 100 to 150 years. Soil erosion took place in those areas; they were given no protection; there were no constructive plans, there was no progress. In the fourth place, until a few years ago, he lived mainly in the slums of the towns and cities and nobody can deny that. Wherever one went in South Africa, one found that in the main the ghastly slums were inhabited by Coloureds. Fifthly, his sense of thrift was not developed. He received no assistance in that direction. The Coloured has in fact never felt at home anywhere. This is borne out by the fact that a book called “God’s Stepchildren”, was written about him by one of his own people.

No, the author is White.

My apology if the author is White. But the point is that is how they regarded themselves, and the Coloureds are still under that impression. To a great extent they are still in that psychological condition.

Mr. Speaker, these circumstances are responsible for the fact that the Coloureds as a group do not have self-pride like other nations, and if you lack self-respect, what respect can you show to others? The respect which you can show to others, the manner in which you conduct yourself towards your fellowmen, depends on your own self-respect. I want to advance a third proposition. Not only did the Coloureds continue to live in this condition and retrogress in some respects, but the proposition I want to put forward is that these conditions under which they lived and under which they even retrogressed in some respects, obtained under the system of the so-called Common Voters’ Roll. It was under that very system of a Common Voters’ Roll, which the Opposition represents to us as our salvation in the relations between the Whites and the Coloureds that these conditions obtained and spread amongst the Coloureds. A small group of Coloureds dabbled in politics and allowed themselves to be bluffed that the political heaven belonged to them, whilst the broad masses continued to live in a state of backwardness. Let me put these few questions to the Leader of the Opposition, who is a Western Province man and who knows the conditions in this part well and who represented a constituency in this part of the country in this House. What has the Common Voters’ Roll brought the Coloureds at Genadendal? The Leader of the Opposition knows Genadendal. There you have 6,000 morgen of the very best land to be found in South Africa, with more water than most other parts. After all, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also represented those areas. Let us ask him what the Common Voters’ Roll did for Genadendal, what did it do for Mamre, to mention just two examples in the Western Province? What change did the Common Voters’ Roll bring about in District Six? It came into being under that system. In the third place I ask: What did the Common Voters’ Roll do for the Coloureds in commerce? If it is such a magic word and one need only wave a wand to open a new door for the Coloureds, why did the Common Voters’ Roll, which dates back more than 100 years, not assist the Coloureds to make progress in the field of commerce? What did it do for them in the sphere of technical education? It was left to a Government such as this, which stands condemned in the eyes of the Opposition, who invoke world opinion to condemn the Government, to introduce technical education for the Coloureds. What did the Common Voters’ Roll do for them in respect of housing? What did it do for them in the so-called open universities, where the number of Coloured students was adroitly restricted, with the result that it was impossible for them to gain admission in great numbers? I shall tell you, Sir, what the Common Voters’ Roll did for them. It resulted in continual hostility between the Coloureds and a large section, and mainly the oldest section, of the White population; that is what it did for them, because they became a political football that was used not to bring about anything in their own interests, but to threaten other people’s political rights.

I want to go a little further. I find that in those years when the United Party was in power and when the Common Voters’ Roll to which the United Party wants us to return, existed, an annual report was submitted to the then Minister of Justice, Social Welfare and Demobilization (Mr. Lawrence). In this report certain facts of connection with the Coloureds were given, and it is very interesting to note these facts. The Common Voters’ Roll then existed. All the nice things which the United Party wants us to introduce again existed at the time. I find that the Secretary for Social Welfare, Mr. Kuschke, signed an annual report which he submitted to his Minister. In the report he refers to a 1936 Government Commission which inquired into the position of the Cape Coloureds and says—

Remember, it was in 1946 that he submitted this report—

I now quote the words of the Commission of Inquiry—

Mr. Speaker, the point which I want to make here is that the Common Voters’ Roll, the heaven on earth which the United Party promises the Coloureds, existed at that time. It had been tested. In spite of this men like Senator Edgar Brookes and Senator F. S. Malan had to complain in the Parliament of the Union of South Africa, that insufficient attention was being given to the Coloureds by the machinery of State in that heaven which the United Party wants to give the Coloureds. Moreover, the then Minister of Social Welfare and Demobilization then came along and created a Coloured Advisory Council. And what was the object, according to him; why did he want that Coloured Advisory Council? he says—

The point I wish to make is that this Common Voters’ Roll existed at that time. The United Party want to go back to that roll but when we had it in operation it was necessary, in spite of the wonderful Common Voters’ Roll, to recommend a separate administration and to complain that Government Departments were not caring for the interests of the Coloured population and, what is more, to bring into existence a C.A.C. to advise the Government upon economic, political and social matters, in spite of the Common Voters’ Roll. The United Party’s policy stands condemned by the reports which its own Minister tabled here. After all, that is not something to experiment with: we have had it in South Africa all these years.

That brings me to the most important aspect of the clash between the principles of the two parties and it lies in the basic approach of the two parties to the Coloureds. The United Party’s view is that there must be a Common Voters’ Roll—some say only in the Cape, others say that it must be given further consideration—but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must now give us an answer to this question, because he wants to see the outcome of our policy and we want to see the outcome of his; he must tell us whether this Common Voters’ Roll is to be restricted to the Cape; and if it is restricted to the Cape, why not the Coloureds in the other provinces also? If it is restricted to the Cape and not to be extended to the other provinces why is it confined to the Coloured man, or it is going to be extended to the Coloured woman and the 18-year-old as well? Will the Coloured then, when he constitutes the majority in an electoral division, be able to nominate a Coloured to become a Member of Parliament? Because that is what they admitted at the election. I wish to ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he appreciates what that will lead to and whether as a reasonable man he realizes what racial disharmony and racial strife that would unleash? But I wish to ask the Leader of the Opposition this: If he restores them to the Common Roll, how could you say to people whom you restore to the Common Roll and allow to vote with you for the same candidate and whom you allow to stand for election themselves: “I want you to live in separate residential areas”. What right would you have to say that to them? I believe the Leader of the Opposition advocates separate residential areas, because apart from the Group Areas Act, he applies the policy in Milnerton Estates. A Coloured man may not buy property there. I ask the Leader of the Opposition: If you have a man together with you on the Common Voters’ Roll, what right have you then to place him in a separate residential area?

While I am on the subject I want to add just this. The Leader of the Opposition had a lot to say about the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister about group areas. I do not want to discuss the question of group areas here this afternoon, except that I wish merely to deal with what he said. He said that the manner in which the Group Areas Act is being enforced is a reason for lack of confidence in the Government. What is that manner which the Leader of the Opposition had in mind, or was what he said just another of the contentions he advances without facts to support them? Because what is our policy? In the first place the policy—and it is laid down in the Act—is that no group area or residential area shall be defined without a proper investigation at which the parties concerned may give evidence. In other words, the people who are affected are given an opportunity to appear before an impartial board. In the second place, it is the policy—and it has been declared in this Parliament—that anybody who cannot care for himself will not be moved, unless there is suitable alternative accommodation for him. In the third place, where people are compulsorily moved because they are not qualified to stay in a certain area, there is provision for their proper compensation if they suffer losses. But, in the fourth place, where perhaps people are affected in a way that would harm them, there is the system of permits by which exemptions could be made in their case until their position changed or until they can be given other relief. But the Leader of the Opposition comes here and complains about the manner in which this Act is being applied. He uttered this parrot cry during the election also. What is he busy doing? I shall tell him what he is doing. He advocates separate residential areas but is busy indirectly prompting people to resist the enforcement of this Act and, what is more, by prompting them to resist this Act, he is robbing people of the opportunity to establish themselves as a community where they may acquire property rights, where they can build up a community life, where their schools can develop and their trade can flourish. He is depriving them of these things by going about the country with these perverse slanders.

Mr. Speaker, the time has come to put our cards on the table and he must tell us now whether he wants to derive advantages from this kind of propaganda while at heart he is in favour of separate residential areas. He must be frank with us on this question. I think we are becoming heartily tired of people in South Africa who oppose this Government politically and at the same time in their hearts desire those same privileges and want this Government to bear the blame for it, but all the same it must create the opportunity for them to share in those privileges. An instance came to my attention recently and I must just ascertain whether I may use the name; the case of a very well-known, prominent person who recently appeared before a certain Commission and who, while he is the protagonist of a more extreme attitude than the Progressive Party’s policy of equality, when it came to the delimitation of certain areas where his house is situated, gave his attorney instructions to apply for a separate residential area for him. I shall give the House his name at a later stage. It is so characteristic of the whole attitude of people who want to enjoy the advantages of the consequences of this Government’s policy but who do not want to share the responsibility. Mr. Speaker, by contrast the National Party’s policy is clear. As a matter of principle we reject the basic premise of the United Party. We do not say that the Coloured is a problem. We realize that he can become a valuable element in the country, but what we do say is that regulating the relationship between him and the White man is a problem. It is our problem and our task. And just as the Coloured has a right in his own sphere to enjoy the happiness that South Africa can give her children, so the White man also has a right of his own. And I want to tell the Leader of the Opposition that as long as this Government exists and as long as it is my task to handle this Department we are not prepared to grant rights in such a way as to destroy the rights of the White man. We shall strive for both and the attitude we have taken up in our approach is that the Coloured must be taught not to chase political will-o’-the-wisps but more and more to shoulder his responsibilities vis-à-vis his own people. His leaders must accept responsibilities vis-à-vis the broad masses of the Coloured people. Unless we do that a considerable number of Whites will be drawn down to the more backward level of the Coloured population and we must prevent that. That is why the Prime Minister’s announcement and the policy which we are following to-day offers an opportunity for the advancement of Coloured education. That is why there is a Coloured leader like Mr. Golding who has openly said in public that education has not advanced so much under any other Government as under the Nationalist Government. An opportunity is being offered the Coloured to develop his own towns and cities and to develop his own system of local Government. I do not wish to go into the details of that this afternoon, except that I want to tell the hon. member for Peninsula that we want to make it possible this year still for a start to be made with the institution of local authorities for Coloureds. Mr. Speaker, it offers scope for the development of rural areas and settlements. It affords an opportunity for the establishment of their own Development Corporation. We have already given notice of legislation in this regard. But, further, it affords an opportunity to the Coloured to attain posts in his own Government Departments and in his own section of the Civil Service, in which he can serve his own people. This was not possible under the Common Voters’ Roll system of the United Party. We say, too, that it also affords the Coloureds the opportunity to develop their political rights with a sense of responsibility, firstly in respect of local government, which is the foundation of any healthy community life, and which is the basis of any orderly democratic system. That is why we want to make a start by teaching him to regulate his own life on the foundation of local authorities. In the second place we are offering him that opportunity in this Council, which we want to reorganize, and negotiations in connection with which we shall commence this year and make available legal advice to the Coloureds, so that they will be given all the necessary help in deliberating with us.

The last point I wish to make is that by doing that we are creating an opportunity for consultation. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition talks about consultation all day. Precisely by instituting such a council and precisely by giving the Coloured community as a whole the opportunity to gain a share and to acquire control over a great part of their community life, we are giving the real leader of the Coloured population the chance to come to the fore so that we can deliberate with him on matters of common interest and their own interests. By those measures we shall develop his sense of responsibility and make him valuable to the life of the community.

I want to ask just one more question: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition continually wants to know from us, and the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) also asked it again this afternoon: “Is that the final word?” I want to ask them, seeing that they are not prepared to answer all the other questions here or to tell us what the end of their road is and to give us their assurance that when that object is attained the White man will still exist, what right have they then to ask us as a human institution what the end of our road is? Except that they cannot deny this: our course will uplift, our course will confer rights, our course will open new channels for earning a living, our course will afford the opportunity for consultation, our course will create an opportunity for the development of a sense of responsibility on the part of the Coloureds in the governing of their own affairs, and our course will make it possible to respect each other in a spirit of good neighbourliness because there will be self-respect. Whither does your course lead? If the United Party cannot say where its course leads to, what right have they to ask us where our course leads to?

We have had a spate of Cabinet Ministers coming to the assistance of the hon. the Prime Minister since Tuesday afternoon and I can’t feel that any of them has made a great contribution towards the problems with which they have been dealing. We have just had the hon. Minister of Coloured Affairs, to whom I always listen with interest because I believe that he is sincerely devoted to the task that he has got. I don’t approve the task he has got, but I think he is sincere about it, and I always listen to him with interest, but I must say that after 40 minutes, he completely failed to throw any light on the great mystery of how a Coloured state is going to operate within the Republican state, as outlined by the hon. the Prime Minister. I am sorry that he did not deal with it. I am not surprised, because I don’t think he knows himself. Then we had the hon. Minister of Transport. It is a great pity, Sir, that the hon. Minister of Transport, whose ability we know very well, will insist on being a sort of comic relief on the Government benches when he comes into a debate. The only serious remark he made, after giving what was a travesty of United Party policy, was to say frankly that he thought that policy would mean the end of South Africa. Well, that is his opinion. He is quite entitled to it. But it is wrong. But, Sir, to take up the time of this House, as he did this afternoon, to come to that conclusion, seems to me rather lighthearted for a gentleman in his position. Then we had the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration trying to give us an account of a formidable five-year plan of economic development in the Transkei and the Bantustans. That has happened before. Sir. The hon. Minister was so carried away by his enthusiasm that he never got to the five-year plan and we still don’t know what it is.

Yesterday we had the hon. Minister of Finance, who moralized. I always am very suspicious when the hon. the Minister of Finance starts moralizing. Some of the most outrageous things he introduced into this House have been accompanied by moral precepts and a great deal of moralizing. But he did say one thing yesterday afternoon. He referred to the possibility of obtaining financial assistance from the International Development Association. That was a very important suggestion he made, and I am sorry that he did not develop it a little bit further. We will have an opportunity later in the Session to raise this matter, and I hope that he will be prepared to pursue the matter a little further. This Development Association is a new organization that so far has done comparatively little, but I would like on a suitable occasion to discuss this matter further with the hon. the Minister of Finance.

Sir, I think that after the feast of speeches from the Cabinet, perhaps hon. members will be glad to go home, and I therefore move—

I second.